judging religious teachings or interpretations by their fruit

[sophiaserpentia]

In my last post yesterday, I don't think I articulated my thought well enough.

If there exists a divine presence, I believe that divinity wants humans to foster understanding and compassion. (If not, what good is it?) I believe that the most enduring religious movements have this at the core of their message.

To the point, I believe that this is the core of Jesus' message. There are many examples to illustrate this, but this point was made explicit when Jesus said the two greatest commandments in the law are to love God with all of one's heart, mind, and spirit, and to love one's neighbor as oneself (Matthew 22:34-40). He said these were the greatest commandments upon which all of the other commandments hang. Therefore it seems to me that all other commandments were meant to be seen as secondary to this concern.

If we take this to be the core of Jesus' teachings, then it creates a litmus test whereby we can test the validity of any doctrinal element or interpretation in the tradition.

I am not concerned with exploring how any one point of doctrine can be twisted to serve a purpose; rather, I am concerned with the effect of a doctrine when taken to heart as it is stated. Sure, there have been those who argued that killing a blasphemer was an act of love; but I do not see this as taking "love thine enemy" to heart. No one is fooled by that kind of cynical, self-serving mutilation of a religious teaching.

When Jesus said this, I believe that he was giving us a way of seeing through the cloud of claims to righteousness:

[Matthew 7:15] Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves.
[16] By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?
[17] Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit.
[18] A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit.
[19] Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
[20] Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
[21] Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
[22] Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?'
[23] Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'

This was directed as a warning against those who claim to bear religious righteousness, but who bring forth "bad fruit."

How does this cash out? That was demonstrated in John 8:1-11. As the Pharisees told Jesus, the Law of Moses demanded that a woman caught in the act of adultery was to be stoned to death. Technically speaking, they were right; that is what the Law of Moses demanded. If Jesus was, like many of his followers today are, a staunch upholder of religious law no matter who gets hurt, he would have told them yes, she must be stoned. Instead he challenged them, quite possibly putting himself in danger, because he understood that the crowd of Pharisees was bearing bad fruit.

When I say the end result of a doctrine (or its interpretation) can put the validity of the doctrine itself into question, I may be going beyond what Jesus meant to say. However, I think Paul meant to amplify this point:

[Romans 7:4] So, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit to God.
[5] For when we were controlled by the sinful nature, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death.
[6] But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.

On the face of it, Paul's argument in Romans, chapter 7 doesn't make sense until we ask, "What kind of sinful passions could Paul mean, that are roused by the law of Moses?" The entire thrust of this book's argument, though, is that we cannot rely on religious codes to ensure that we are acting from righteousness. Paul clearly believed that doing so was a trap that causes us to act inhumanely.

Instead of looking into books, then, the key is to judge a teaching or an idea or an action by the guidance of Spirit, in light of its effects on people -- whether it is good fruit or bad.

Sometimes Paul moralized, but where he did, he moralized not by arguing from what was written in the law of Moses, but from the conviction that he thought nature and real life would show certain things to be "inexpedient." In any case, Paul's argument about the newness of Spirit versus the oldness of the written code is not compatible with the use to which many modern Christians put his words, as justification for the perpetuation of oppression.

Edit. I have revised this post to reflect that what may be questionable is not necessarily a point of doctrine itself, but any particular interpretation thereof. Problems to which I point may stem more from interpretation than from doctrine itself, and it is helpful to keep that distinction in mind here.

Comments

[azaz-al.livejournal.com]

If divinity wants humans to foster understanding and compassion, then most religious texts, or at least the way they are used, are in contradiction with divinity's goals. Anything written down as a rule has a tendency to be seen as immutable and rigid. Thus no exceptions can be made, even if the entire world has moved on to a place where the old rule is senseless. Furthermore, anyone can write down an opinion and claim it is divine, and if they have enough authority (force) to back this up, they will eventually be considered correct in this.
I think a lot of this goes into the idea of third circuit thought dominationg the current stage of human evolution. Poeple worship the written word instead of looking within for their heart's response. There are people who are kind at heart who nevertheless stay silent of even act complicitly with policies they can see are harmful or painful to others, because they have been led to believe that these particular written down words are straight from god and he must somehow have some higher plan that makes the harm these rules are causing all worthwhile. People don't trust their hearts to tell them what is right. People don't, by and large, seem to have an actual connection with the divine. It could well be that religion - usually a collection of rules based on writings enshrined for their own sake, but purportedly because they were inspired by God - is INHERENTLY a stumbling block to communion with the divine.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

I strongly agree -- which is why I favor the model of Renewal in the transmission of religious tradition. This method would encourage people to draw guidance directly from Spirit (and from one's community) instead of looking in books for answers about how to address matters in one's life.

Suppose a person writes down a few thoughts to help organize and articulate them. If the people of one generation of people draw inspiration therefrom, they might try to pass that inspiration on to the next generation. That's where IMO problems start to arise, because the writings were to begin with a response to the world of the first generation. The people of the second generation can see that the first generation was inspired by the writings but can't necessarily understand why. So some of the meaning is lost right away -- possibly a crucial part. This is part of how edifices created as solutions for one generation become problems for the next.

[badsede.livejournal.com]

even if the entire world has moved on to a place where the old rule is senseless.

I don't think that the world should be the standard. Just because some rule has become senseless because the world has shifted does not always mean that the rule - or the interpretation of the rule to connect back to [Bad username or site: sophiaserpentia</i @ livejournal.com]'s point about interpretation - is the problem. When contradictions arise, sometimes it is the world that needs to be changed. But at the same time, our interpretation of the rule often needs to shift within this new context as well so that we continue to address the *why* of the rule and not just its what.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

I don't think that the world should be the standard.

Why not?

[badsede.livejournal.com]

Dammit, my comment go truncated.

My reason is simple, because the world gives me no reason to. It is not ruled by love, it is not ruled by compassion, it is not ruled by understanding. The world is merely the battlegroud on which these contend with hate, selfishness and close-mindedness.

But further, "times have changed" is a valuless statement. Change is a valueless thing. Both growth and decay are change, so I see no reason to use the fact that the world has changed to something other than what it was as a reason to consider it good. It may be good, it may not. It must be proven by what it is, not by the mere fact that it is different from what was.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

My reason is simple, because the world gives me no reason to. ... It must be proven by what it is, not by the mere fact that it is different from what was.

Fair enough.

I think, though, that the world is all we have. When we establish a religious institution, our goal may be to keep it from becoming a worldly edifice. But since it is operated by human beings, there is no way to keep greed and self-interest out. We rely on the chance that every generation will produce saints. We rely on that with or without a church in the world; without a church, the saints would build one. So, more than tradition, it is the presence of exemplary individuals among us that give us hope.

[badsede.livejournal.com]

We have much more than the world. We each have a spark of the divine, an internal guide that we can hear in any time and place if we will but listen.

And thus we see the advantage of having a living Tradition. Our generation need not produce saints for the Church to have saints. The saints of old speak as surely as the saints of today. It is the exemplary people - or at least people in moments of the exemplary - who form and craft Tradition. We cannot keep all evil out, but it is the very reality of the living Tradition that allows us to whether ages of evil and come out on the other side.

[glamwhorebunni.livejournal.com]

*applauds*

[badsede.livejournal.com]

I believe that divinity wants humans to foster understanding and compassion.

I think this is only part of it. I think that divinity also wants us to transcend that within us which is counter to the divine. Close-mindedness and hate qualify, but so do many other things: selfishness, pride, etc. I think Jesus' way of stating it works much better. Most sins are the sin of loving self more than God or others. And as I have said before, sin often masquerades as love.

Instead of looking into books, then, the key is to judge a teaching or an idea or an action by the guidance of Spirit, in light of its effects on people -- whether it is good fruit or bad.

And this is the danger of any form of sola scriptura. In at least the Christian context, scripture *is* the guidance of the Spirit. But it is guidance of a very particular form that does not stand well on its own. It needs context, as well as a living interpretive tradition that can help us delve out the point of the "rules," to make sure that we can bring those rules into new situations and have them achieve what they were meant to achieve in their original context.

I think we do ourselves a massive disservice if we neglect our predecessors in faith and their conclusions. They may not apply directly to our situation - or they might - but they are our teachers, the giants on whose shoulders we stand. Also, if we consider ourselves a community of faith, a community that transcends just this time, then we become the oppressors. The Spirit has spoken to all generations, not just our own, so neglecting those others is an act of arrogance and an act of oppression, of denying the previous generations their voice in the timeless community. This is why Chesterson said that Tradition is true democracy, that Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about.

But to tie this to what you said, this is why Tradition must be a living, breathing thing. Allowing it to solidified and cease to address the current situation is the problem.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

I think this is only part of it. I think that divinity also wants us to transcend that within us which is counter to the divine.

I agree. This seems to be why Jesus put loving God above and before loving self and others.


It needs context, as well as a living interpretive tradition that can help us delve out the point of the "rules," to make sure that we can bring those rules into new situations and have them achieve what they were meant to achieve in their original context.

I'm with you so far. But thinking about this after making my original post led me to amend my thoughts to include interpretation.


But to tie this to what you said, this is why Tradition must be a living, breathing thing. Allowing it to solidified and cease to address the current situation is the problem.

Yes, this is the danger.

I fear though that tradition too can become a kind of arrogance. The feminists have a saying of which I'm fond -- "Well-behaved women rarely make history." It was not women who were considered well-behaved who agitated for suffrage (and who continue to do so in some parts of the world). They did not (and do not) have tradition on their side.

It's difficult for Americans today to contemplate women without the ability to vote -- but that's because 1920's revolution is today's tradition. There are times when it is right and necessary to challenge tradition.

[badsede.livejournal.com]

That is also why it is necessary to have a good grasp of the difference between Tradition and tradition. Just because we have always done something a certain way does not make it Tradition. (I am, of course, heavily indulging in Catholic terminology.) And that is why it must be living and breathing, so we know the difference between the things we have long since done because we were/are prompted to do so by the Spirit and the things we have long since done simply because we have yet found or accepted a reason to do otherwise.

Tradition does not require us to be "well-behaved" in the sense of the quote - which is one that I like BTW and I think applies to more than just women. Respectfullness does not mean obsequiousness.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

This really gels nicely with what I was trying to say in the main post. The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews described Jesus as a priest of a tradition that preceded that of Aaron, and as the consecrator of a "cosmic" temple greater than the one of wood and stone in Jerusalem. Using your terminology, I see this as a way of saying that Jesus, as an upholder of the perennial Tradition, found it necessary to come up against the upholders of tradition. Jesus was not well-behaved; and he came up against a tradition which, if it was ever truly inspired of Spirit in the beginning had become worldly.

The difficulty is that someone who crosses tradition in the spirit of Tradition looks to people of the time like a rebel. This is where the litmus test of "good vs. bad fruit" can be applied. Women who fought for suffrage bore good fruit, vs. the bad fruit of disenfranchisement. Pain, suffering, oppression are bad fruit. Those who opposed women's suffrage could have quoted scripture and tradition in their favor, but this doesn't change the fact that they were wrong, and we know it because their teachings bore the bad fruit of continued oppression of women.

[badsede.livejournal.com]

I think you're right. One of the challenges to face is that tradition can be Tradition that has lost its heart and soul, the prompting of the Spirit. I think this is exactly the situation that Jesus was facing. Not only was there the problem that "traditions of men" had been added on top, but that the higher principles of the Law that inspired the Mosaic rules had been supplanted by those rules themselves.

There's a line from Green Day's new album that I think applies: She's a rebel / she's a saint / she's the salt of the earth and she's dangerous The nature of Christ's message is radical. We should worry when it becomes mundane in "the current times."

[lucinda-j.livejournal.com]

If there exists a divine presence, I believe that divinity wants humans to foster understanding and compassion. (If not, what good is it?)

This tells me more about you than it does about divinity. It's been my experience that most people look to religion to validate what they themdselves want to do or be or think. It's a projection. I like yours very much. I like others less.

In other words, while the above is true for you, another individual might say, in all sincerity, "If there exists a divine presence, I believe that divinity wants humans to stop murdering their unborn children. (If not, what good is it?)"

I think it is impossible to view any religious system apart from the humans who adopt it. We create Deity in our own images. Therefore, any examination of Deity reveals more about the examiners than it does about the "true and objective reality" of Deity itself.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

This is an excellent point. Thank you! It can be easy sometimes to forget that.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

The more I examine Paul, the more I come to think that he has been very misunderstood and misrepresented. Not to mention, a lot of stuff was attributed to him which it seems he didn't actually write. That doesn't mean I like what he had to say about homosexuality, but I don't think that he ever intended his letters to be taken as scripture -- rather I think he would have been appalled by the thought of that.

[apeiron-gaia.livejournal.com]

May I quote this post in my own journal?

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

Yes.