BS in Grace

David: Our fundamental goal in recent weeks has been to understand the grand concept of Grace. Last week I affirmed that Grace was both synonymous with and a part of agape Love, and I asked whether, when we dissect agape Love into its constituent parts—as grace, mercy, forgiveness, etc.—there a danger that we fail to see the forest for the trees, that we miss the fullness of the meaning and implication of agape Love. 

I said there is an alternative to taking things apart—to what science calls the reductionist approach—to understanding the concept of agape Love, an approach that aims to capture the forest but ignores the trees. 

This alternative approach is called holism, sometimes spelled with a w. A holistic approach would aim to understand love and grace in their broader, more inclusive contexts, recognizing how they interrelate and inform one another. 

So today, first I am going to discuss holism. And second, I am going to apologize for wasting your time, and I am going to try to get back on the track this class follows—exploring issues (in this case, Grace) through Bible study.

First, then, holism.

A holistic approach to understanding the concepts of grace and love would treat them not as standalone concepts but as parts of a larger, interconnected system of beliefs and experiences. It would seek to show how grace and love function within the broader framework of human relationships, spirituality, and the divine. 

Here’s how we might seek an understanding of Grace and Love holistically:

The first step would be to integrate the disciplines of Theology, Philosophy, and Psychology.

• With regard to Theology, we wouldneed to conduct a thorough examination of scriptural and theological sources and historical contexts to understand historical and doctrinal perspectives on grace and love. We would have to examine the Big Picture, the forest, and while this precludes examining every tree it does include exploring different interpretations within various religious traditions.
• With regard to Philosophy, we would need to integrate the philosophical perspective on love and grace—which means integrating the ethical, existential, and metaphysical dimensions of love and grace. This would be expected to lead us to insights into human free will, morality, and the nature of the divine.
• With regard to Psychology, we would consider psychological theories on attachment, compassion, forgiveness, and altruism in order to shed light on how these concepts manifest in human behavior and relationships.

Having dusted our hands of those trivia, we can proceed to step 2: A Comparative Religious Study

• The study would be about how different religious traditions understand and practice love and grace. We would study Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam), Eastern religions (Buddhism, Hinduism, Sikhism), indigenous spiritualities, and modern spiritual movements, because substantial proportions of the human race adhere to one or other of these traditions and because each tradition may reasonably be hypothesized to offer unique insights into the divine–human relationship and the role of love and grace in that relationship.

So having surveyed the globe, the third step takes into account personal and social Experiential and Contextual Considerations

• With regard to Personal Experiences, we would study personal and communal experiences of love and grace. This could involve qualitative research methods like interviews and ethnography to gather diverse narratives about these experiences.
• With regard to Cultural and Societal Contexts, our holistic approach would analyze how cultural, historical, and societal contexts influence the understanding and expression of love and grace. This could be done by studying how these concepts are portrayed in art, literature, and media.

The fourth holistic step would be to explore the Ethical and Social Implicationsof love and grace. Understanding how these concepts inform personal and social actions and attitudes towards justice, mercy, forgiveness, and social cohesion, and how they motivate individuals and communities towards acts of kindness, charity, and social justice, would be our outcome.

The fifth step, if ever we could reach it, would be the fun part, the part that generates new insights. It is the Synthesis of the preceding parts, recognizing the interplay between individual, communal, and divine aspects of Love and Grace. It involves Theological Reflection of the implications of our new holistic understanding for faith and practice. How would the insights gained inform theological concepts of the divine, human nature, and the moral life?

But wait, there’s more. 

Once we have done all the above, then we can move on to the Practical Application of our new insights, in our Spiritual Practices and Community Engagement. The insights gained will generate new ideas for how love and grace can be embodied in spiritual practices, rituals, and community life. This might involve developing practices that cultivate an awareness of grace in everyday life and encourage loving actions towards oneself and others. Churches, other religious communities, and individuals will have an opportunity to apply their new holistic understanding in their outreach, social justice initiatives, and interfaith dialogue.

BS in Grace?

I must apologize. The politest review of all that I have just said would be that it is BS, and I do not mean Bachelor of Science. What I’ve said is not necessarily untrue and complete nonsense (the non-academic definition of BS). I have simply made the mistake of trying to apply a scientific approach to a spiritual issue. It just doesn’t work. It cannot possibly work. 

I had this epiphany just two days ago, on Thursday evening, on reading an article CJ brought to may attention. God bless Connie for teaching me a lesson in humility and for introducing me not only to a Bible chapter and prophet known to me only by name, but also to Martin Luther King, someone I have revered without quite knowing why. I knew him only by his “I have a dream” speech, and while that alone was enough for me to recognize his greatness, this essay he wrote when he was a young man adds to it. 

The prophet is Jeremiah. I haven’t read the Book of Jeremiah (but I will), but I feel I have learned a great deal about him through MLK’s essay. It was written in 1948, when he was a college student. It was a paper he had to write for class. It earned him a B+. (Why only B+? I have no idea.) 

The thing is, through MLK, Jeremiah showed me—or rather he reminded me of—something I already knew and have myself proposed in this class, namely that we know perfectly well what love and grace are. We don’t need to devote precious time and resources to understanding them holistically or otherwise.

How do I know we all know what love and grace are? I know because I have just learned that Jeremiah knew what I already knew before I had any clue of what Jeremiah wrote (or had his scribe Baruch write). 

I am going to read some portions of MLK’s essay, and here is a link to the whole essay. I believe it tells us everything we need to know about grace, as well as several other issues we often discuss. So here goes:

Jeremiah realized that the covenant made at Mount Sinai had failed to accomplish its purpose. He saw that Israel had become apostate; “they obeyed not, nor inclined their ear, but walked every one in the stubbornness of their evil heart” (11:8; 31:32). This was due to a serious defect inherent in the Old Covenant. Instead of being a spiritual asset it was a snare and a delusion. Instead of leading men to their knees it filled them with foolish presumption, until he strikes out at the priest and scribe and law. (8:8). This rebellion against the Old Covenant came to its climax and crown, when in his later activities the prophet brought forth that noblest of all spiritual conceptions, the New Covenant. The shortcomings of the Old Covenant would be removed in the new. “I will put my law in their inner parts and in their heart will I write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, know Jehovah; for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith Jehovah: for I will forgive their iniquity and their sin will I remember no more.” [ME: If that is not a definition of grace, I will eat my hat.] (31:31ff). In every {respect} the New Covenant will differ from the Old. The law written upon stone is to be replaced by the law written in the heart. As stated by Dr. Matthews, “this law written in the heart required no Torah, canonized by an emotionally conditioned populace and then easily subverted by legalism. Nor were manuals of worship, altars, and a Temple, that so often become ends in themselves, required to aid the spirit of man in communing with his Maker. Nor was residence in the Holy Land essential to the highest religious life. True religion was not rooted in the soil of Palestine, but in the hearts of men and women.” [ME: Phew! How many instances of God’s grace are described here!] The law written in the heart will become an inseparable part of man’s moral being. Principles would take the place of external ordinances. Such principles as truth, and justice, and purity, love to God and love to man, would be enshrined in the hearts of men. This, said Jeremiah, would lead to an ideal state, in which the sins of the people would be forgiven. The children of the New Covenant would be the sons of God, no longer subject to external laws of the state, but ruled by impulses to good, acting upon the heart as a principle which grows from within.

Such was the New Covenant which Jeremiah was the first to conceive. Let us briefly list the positive features of the religious relationship established by the New Covenant. [ME: Note that these quotes are all directly from God himself, in the Bible.] (1) Inwardness: “I will put my law in their inner parts;” (2) Individualism: “all shall know Me;” (3) Forgiveness of sins: “their sins I will remember no more.” All of this states one central truth, the inwardness of true religion. It is this inwardness of true religion which causes men to do the will of God spontaneously from inward inclination rather than from commands of an external law. No one can deny the fact that this prophecy, although rather idealistic, is one of the profoundest anticipations in all the Old Testament. “Liberating religion from all externals, at the same time the New Covenant strengthened and democratized it by placing responsibilities squarely on the shoulder of the individual, and purified and deepened it by making it a matter of conscience.

Jeremiah declares that public religion is an organized hypocrisy. [ME: Here he cites the Book of Jeremiah, Chapter 7 verses 8–10:]

Behold, ye trust in lying words that cannot profit
Will ye steal, murder, and commit adultery and swear falsely,
And burn incense unto Baal, and walk after other gods whom ye know not;
And come and stand before me in my house, which is called by my name, and say,
We are delivered to do all these abominations.

[ME: I am not sure what version of the Bible MLK was using, but here’s the same passage in the NASB version, which I find easier to understand:]

“Behold, you are trusting in deceptive words to no avail. Will you steal, murder, commit adultery, swear falsely, offer sacrifices to Baal, and follow other gods that you have not known, then come and stand before Me in this house which is called by My name, and say, ‘We are saved!’—so that you may do all these abominations?

…[R]itual is never to be used as an end within itself, but only as a means to an end. It would be unfair to say to say that the functionaries of the Temple deliberately meant to inculcate evil or immorality, but they drifted into the belief that the Temple was more important than the distinction of good and evil, the sacrifices more vital than sin. It therefore took the fortitude and mind of Jeremiah to expose these pressing faults.

… [R]eligion is not something which can be organized, rather it is a spontaneous outflow from men’s contact with a divine spirit. As soon as an external compulsion is attempted it leads inevitably to hypocrisy.

Don has taught us a lot about the four great mysteries: Where does Goodness come from? What about Evil? Whose God is God? And: Is there life after death? Jeremiah confirms at least one of Don’s conclusions: that God is the God of all people. It also makes it pretty clear, to my mind anyway, that Goodness comes from the God within—from the Holy Spirit. In that sense, it supports Michael’s contention that the Trinity is Grace, since the Holy Spirit is the Trinity.

But one more word about holism and reductionism: I said that these scientific approaches are entirely inappropriate for understanding spiritual issues, therefore I have wasted your time by thinking I could apply them to our study of Grace. But now I would add that they may not be inappropriate for understanding and guiding how religious institutions approach the issues. That’s a different matter, and maybe something Don might want us to take up at some point.

So back to MLK and Jeremiah: Isn’t what Jeremiah said enough for us already? Do we really need more understanding than he provides? Did he miss something? 

And why have I only just discovered him? Why wasn’t I taught about Jeremiah when I was eight? Does it matter that I discovered him late, or even that I discovered him at all? Jeremiah himself seems to be saying No, it doesn’t matter, because you know it all anyway. It’s in the Holy Spirit that is already inside you.

But if it doesn’t matter, what’s the value of religion, if it has nothing to teach us about Grace and other spiritual issues and indeed risks corrupting what God has put inside us? 

I think the church does have a role, and so does the scientific approach, and that role was suggested by MLK at the beginning of his essay. After describing the tumultuous times in which Jeremiah lived, he wrote:

[P]rophecies spring out of immediate occasions. The situations they deal with, the personal moods, attitudes and temptations they are meant to meet, are always contemporary.

We face occasions so immediate they are both mundanely existential and spiritually beguiling, from climate change to AI. I think Jeremiah has the answer to the spiritual issue of what happens when everyone lives alone in a virtual reality—and that answer is Nothing happens. God is still there inside us. But what happens to the church is another matter entirely, and if I were a church, I’d be desperately promoting the holistic study with which I began this talk. 

And maybe that’s the place to end it. and turn the discussion over to you. Through MLK, Jeremiah has pretty much answered all my questions, but what about you?

C-J: Jeremiah is one of my favorite prophets, perhaps my favorite. I wanted to add, and was waiting for you to get there, that Jeremiah’s book discusses the transition from the church— the temporal, the ritual— to a very personal religion. In that paper, I hope people will delve deeply, although it was a lot of ground to cover. 

Martin Luther King summarized that Jeremiah’s religion is an immediate, personal relationship between Jehovah and the individual soul, entailing obedience and devotion from the individual to his God. “I will give them a heart to know me. I am Jehovah, and they shall be my people.” You did quote that, and it’s a very common scripture passage that all young Christians learn as they study the book of Deuteronomy. Jeremiah died as a martyr and was called the weeping prophet because he felt so intensely, I believe, similar to Christ. Please don’t interpret that as blasphemy, but it’s about the sensitivity to the state of the people of God, those who profess to know God, and this sense of ache in his spirit for not having that full relationship with the divine. So, the whole point of Martin Luther King’s statement was that Jeremiah understood our relationship with God to be very personal and intimate.

Michael, I often hear you express confusion over cognitive dissonance, particularly regarding the coexistence of judgment and grace. I’m curious about your perception of what David shared and whether it changes your understanding or feelings about what you heard.

Michael: I wasn’t specifically thinking about judgment, but the New Covenant is made very clear with Jesus’s coming. I also had never heard of this prophecy in Jeremiah, which is a surprise, and I love it. 

To Christians, it’s clear that Jesus introduced a New Covenant. What shocks me is that the church seems reluctant to let go of the Old Covenant, despite having a much better, improved, and entirely different New Covenant. We still cling to the old, which is shocking, even though Jeremiah in the Old Testament points to the New Covenant and says, “here it is!” 

It’s fascinating to me, including how it’s linked with grace and Jesus’s message, and how he accomplished this New Covenant. I’m not fully there yet.

Regarding judgment, my understanding of it from the church and from Dr. Weaver might be very different. Can we think of judgment as grace? That they are not very different things? And do these terms have different meanings in the two Covenants (Old and New)?

C-J: It goes back to what Dr. Weaver said last week, that the Tree of Life represented grace in the garden; it’s always been there. The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil represents understanding through man’s perception, and we don’t always get it right. In fact, pride, which is the beginning of the fall, comes into play. There’s nothing wrong with knowledge itself; it’s about how we use it, often for selfish reasons. But grace has always been there. It’s in our DNA. We are meant to be embedded in our DNA as the children of God. Does that make sense, Michael?

Carolyn: Is the New Covenant involved at all in the spiritual life of Jews? Do they believe in Jeremiah? Have they incorporated it into their spirituality or religiosity? I’m just curious about the perspective of people of the Old Covenant on Jeremiah.

C-J: Jeremiah’s time was during the era of Deuteronomy. He clearly understood what Deuteronomy was saying. He observed when people became caught up in temple rituals, rules, power dynamics, and stubbornness—the wilderness experience. Jeremiah speaks a lot about the law and that period; it was very real to him. But he advocated moving beyond the rituals and traditions of the law. 

Jesus said, “I have not come to abolish it but to fulfill it.” Jeremiah talks about this transition, this realization, this epiphany, that our relationship with the divine is a personal one. As David mentioned, it’s not about doing away with the institution, the rituals of the church, or living a certain standard of life in a community. Jeremiah didn’t have a problem with those things. But his message was about not becoming trapped in piety and ritual. Instead, understand there’s a very personal relationship here, Carolyn. 

Carolyn: I believe some of the Jewish rituals were anticipatory, looking forward to what would happen in the time of Christ, the crucifixion, and his bearing of our sins.

Donald: Why do people seek spirituality? Why this search for something beyond themselves? Why the need to gather, organize, and construct religious structures worldwide? Why not simply declare it a personal journey and leave it at that? I understand the social aspect—people gather for various reasons, including shared experiences or backgrounds. We’re inherently social beings. But what drives the need for highly organized religion? There’s a clear distinction between “spirituality” and “religion.” What are your thoughts on this? Are these terms relevant to our discussion, or is this a deviation?

C-J: The issue isn’t just with the institution of religion but with all our institutions.

Don: It seems we’re inclined to define salvation’s parameters and metrics. Nobody wants to face death or the Hellfire presented so convincingly. If a group claims, “This is the way!” and offers guidance, it’s natural to follow, despite scriptures teaching a personal relationship with God and that salvation is from God, not ourselves. 

Michael’s right; we cling to the Old Covenant as though it were our salvation. When we emphasize grace and God’s work on our behalf, it leads to martyrdom or crucifixion, as Jesus discovered.

Donald: We have friends who view the traditional church as important, while acknowledging its flaws. Accepting Jesus Christ as your Savior and being baptized is a profound experience. But there’s an additional aspect related to doctrine, not just a simple two-step process but a singular step. The church, too, seems to desire this blending of structure and grace, of personal and organized religious relationships as a singular process. It’s fascinating how we organize our lives, often privately or in small groups, but choose to structure our religious lives with rules and organization.

Don: The issue lies not only in the structure but in the perspective, which is often flawed. Religion should focus on what God does for us, not what we do for God—a perspective not commonly held. How do our Church’s fundamental beliefs reflect on God, grace, and our efforts? This perspective aligns with the concept of holism, not eliminating ritual but reframing its significance.

Sharon: Perhaps the holistic view of religion offers sociological benefits, such as the sense of belonging to a denomination or group. Ultimately, though, it’s about the deeply personal relationship with God, which is spiritual, not sociological. The church and its guidelines often seem more focused on the social benefits than on the individual’s spiritual journey with Jesus, the grace He bestows, and how He lives out His life through us. There are broader implications for understanding the role of holistic religion.

Don: Is it even possible to have an organized church based on the concept of God’s grace? Or would that be fundamentally incompatible?

Donald: Alternatively, if such a church were possible, what might it look like? Would it differ significantly from the church we find valuable?

C-J: I believe the approach would differ significantly. The Assemblies of God, for instance, maintain their member churches at a population of around 500. This ensures communion and support among members, akin to an extended family. The principle of keeping congregations small to foster close relationships was evident even if the exact numbers weren’t specified. 

The problem arises when churches compete over size and wealth, equating their worth with their offerings or tithes. This mindset can lead to destruction. Our relationship with God is divine business; the church is human endeavor. God emphasizes that spirit and salvation are His domain, not the construction of larger churches. The focus should always be on our relationship with God. Mega churches often promote populism, prosperity doctrines, and political influence, which can be dangerous. Historical examples, like the power of the Popes and the wealth of the Templars, show how religious institutions can amass earthly power and riches, straying from the essence of God. 

Jeremiah emphasizes a personal relationship with God, one that no one can take from you. It’s in adversity that we truly seek God, asking not just for guidance but for understanding our role in His plan. Jeremiah’s sensitivity and focus on a spiritual relationship with God, desiring that his words and intentions align with the Holy Spirit, resonate with me. This is the essence of the book of Jeremiah: an evolving, correcting, and constantly examined relationship with God and others.

Michael: David, you suggest that this spiritual connection is individual and perpetual. While I might have misunderstood your use of ‘intuitive,’ it’s clear that recognizing and embracing this covenant is not instinctual for everyone. It requires repeated exposure and learning to become more familiar. This difficulty in understanding might be why it’s challenging for some.

David: I didn’t claim it was intuitive, but I do believe it’s inherent in everyone born, which is why God is the God of all mankind. God resides within us all. However, not everyone seeks to understand this divine presence. The fact that we’re here in class, attempting to grasp the concept of grace, reflects our personal journeys. Through this Bible study, we realize the inherent connection but question the need for further understanding of something that is already a part of us.

Don’s remarks on salvation bring to mind The Shawshank Redemption. In the film, a wrongly accused man hides his escape tool, a tiny rock hammer, inside a Bible. The warden, unaware of the Bible’s altered purpose, ironically remarks, “Salvation lies within!” Indeed, it did, but it was not the salvation he imagined!

Reinhard: I like to compare the covenants, old and new. In the Old Testament, grace is evident, but it’s received through obedience to God’s law, such as performing sacrificial offerings to gain favor from God. This favor, or grace, results in blessings like good health and prosperity, as we discussed last week. For instance, Job offered sacrifices to cover potential transgressions by his children, seeking God’s grace for their well-being. Cyrus, the king of Persia, encouraged sacrifices to God, leading to received blessings. This, I refer to as worldly grace, contrasted with the immediate consequences of God’s wrath for disobedience. 

However, the New Testament shifts from salvation by law to salvation by faith, emphasizing a life lived in closeness to God through faith. This contrast between the Old and New Testaments highlights a transition from obedience under the law to faith-driven grace, significantly improving our spiritual lives as Christians. We have access to this understanding through the teachings of the new covenant. Even in the story of Adam and Eve, God’s grace was present despite their disobedience, showcasing that obedience and faith are key to receiving God’s grace, which is why we worship Him out of love.

C-J: As a child, my father’s discipline involved reflection, asking me to consider my actions and their implications. This process wasn’t just about learning to listen but to gain understanding. Similarly, my relationship with God involves recognizing how He communicates with me in various ways, whether as a parent, friend, authority, or source of love and grace. It’s about discerning whether it’s my own thoughts processing or God speaking to me, often through the simple words of others that resonate deeply. God’s creativity in communication is His work, not mine. 

Even at my age, I’m still learning to recognize and understand God’s voice, reminding myself to listen and surrender to His will. This intimate, personal relationship, as referenced by Martin Luther King, is grounded not in rituals or texts but in understanding God’s voice and aligning with His will. It involves recognizing the appropriate voice for different audiences to ensure effective communication, understanding, and trust. This relationship with God can be nurtured through various means, including spiritual texts, praise, worship, or even encounters with strangers, emphasizing the importance of learning the many ways God speaks to us.

Don: Next week, we’ll hear from Michael.

* * *