if you set it in heaven and the angels were revolutionaries

Speaking of the Apotheosis of Washington, I’m disappointed nobody (the French revolutionaries?) ever started a republican religion.

All the regular religions are very clearly monarchical. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all derive from the way ancient people thought about monarch-subject relations. God is our Lord and Master, and we are either His loyal servants or else traitors in rebellion against Him. Prayer is traditionally done kneeling, and resembles petitioning a monarch for aid. Earthly monarchs were clearly thought of as sub-monarchs in God’s larger empire; thus the title King of Kings, which actually reflects the title of the Persian Shahanshah in the sense of “sure, you’re the king of a small subregion, but I rule you as thoroughly as you rule your subjects”. All of this would have been clear and obvious to ancient people who were used to Near Eastern despotic monarchies.

Imagine the sort of religion that would come out of a culture focused on republican virtue, like Rome during the Punic Wars, or Constitution-era America, or revolutionary France. Maybe they would believe in a Heavenly Congress of angels that held spirited debates on whether the harvest would be good this year, or whether they should send a plague. There would be different parties - the Justice Party that wants all human misdeeds to be strictly punished; the Mercy Party that wants to give people another chance. Human actions would tip the balance between the factions and swing close votes on how to treat the material world.

Instead of intercessionary prayer, you would write a letter to your angelic representative, who if they were sufficiently well-disposed to you would bring it to the Congress floor (priests might have special rituals for sending these letters along). Instead of Heaven being the King of Kings, it would be the capital of a sort of cosmic federation, with Earthly republics having the same relationship to it as US states do to Washington. The natural law would take the form of a constitution reserving some powers (the power to set morality, the power to control the weather) for Heaven but delegating others (the power to levy taxes, the power to settle disputes) to Earth.

Most important, the relationship of humans to these angelic representatives wouldn’t be that of abject slaves. It would be that of constituents. The angelic representatives are distinguished, virtuous, high-status people. But they are not your masters and you don’t owe them anything except respect, and furthermore they agree with that. They demand you treat them with dignity, but they would be absolutely horrified if you knelt to them, because we are all in a republic of free and equal citizens and that is not something we do. Human beings have dignity for the same reason the angels have dignity, and they are expected to display civic virtue for the same reason the angels display civic virtue - in order to create a more perfect polity. The procedural rules of the earthly legislature are sacred because they mirror the procedural rules of the Heavenly Congress. Participating in civic life is sacred, because this is what connects us to the angels.

If you live a virtuous life, then once you die you become a voting citizen of the heavenly republic. If you live an unvirtuous life, and bow the knee to tyrants, or betray the republic to corruption and flatterers, then when you die you are denied the heavenly franchise. Maybe you are also tortured forever or something, but being denied the heavenly franchise is the really serious punishment.

Bible Showdown: Literal Vs. Allegorical Interpretation

horizontescuriosos asked:

I came across one interpretation of Genesis that I thought might be insightful to ask someone about. The idea I found is that Genesis is really an allegory about human sin … Like before sin, Adam and Eve were naked and unashamed. Then Eve tried to sneak eating the apple, sin entered, and from then on Adam and Eve wore clothes out of shame … As a pastor, do you think this idea of Genesis being an allegory for human sin has credit? (Edited for length)

Hey dear friend, I’ve definitely seen Genesis (and much of the Bible) interpreted as allegory, and it’s a legitimate way of reading the Bible, called the Alexandrian method, that’s been around for centuries.

However, I personally view most of the Bible as literal, factual history — or at the very least, I assume that the Bible authors had an original intention that wasn’t meant to be stretched towards a “spiritualized” meaning that says whatever we fancy.

Scripture doesn’t read as an allegorical account, but more like a news periodical. There are parts of Scripture that are definitely allegory, but it’s usually obvious, with the author even saying so.

Ancient accounts of legend only revealed details that were much like Chekov’s gun, which were set-ups for a moral lesson. From the Epic of Gilgamesh to Beowulf to The Odyssey, no detail was wasted. But Scripture would describe things that had no other purpose but to describe them. Jonah talks about buying an actual ticket to board a ship. Peter and his fellow fisherman caught 153 fish, which has no other meaning, except that they caught 153 fish. When Jesus is arrested, a naked guy totally flees the scene. Mythological stories never read this way. Most of Scripture has a prosaic, open-ended description that was not a type of genre for myths back then, but for eyewitness testimony.

While the Alexandrian method certainly has merit, here’s one huge advantage of the literal interpretation of Scripture.

Literal interpretation of Scripture leads to deeper change. In the third century church, John Chrysostom, the Archbishop of Constantinople (also known as the Golden-Mouthed Preacher), held to a literal interpretation despite the popularity of the Alexandrian method. This brought about a revolutionary revival in the third century church that lit a fire under complacent Christianity.

When John Chrysostom read, for example, that Jesus said to “feed the least of these,” he took that to mean, “feed the least of these.” He used charitable donations from the wealthy congregants to build hospitals for the sick instead of fixing the church building.  He constantly preached to help the poor; the aristocrats hated him. At one point the Roman government invaded the city to retaliate against a riot, and while other pastors fled, John Chrysostom stayed. The Emperor ended up pulling back the invasion, and word got out that St. John had remained with the people, so his church filled with disciples just like him. At the cost of John’s own reputation and even his life, he followed Jesus when it would’ve been easy for him to soften up Jesus’s teachings into cute whimsy Instagram quotes.

The thing is, when Scripture is seen as mostly allegorical, it’s too easy to have a pick-and-choose mentality of convenience. In a heated moment, Scripture becomes malleable to the point of suggestions. When I allegorize the Bible, I run the risk of softening its edges when I disagree with parts of it, which is a bit like pressing an off-button on my wife whenever I disagree with her. Then I don’t have a real Bible and a real God, but a butler who tells fables that simply affirms what I’m already doing.

This sugar-coating tendency isn’t something we do on purpose. In fact, consider the opposite case. When you watch a movie “based on a true story,” there’s a subconscious visceral weight to the story that this actually happened, and it deepens what you’re watching. In the same way, when you know the Bible is describing real commands and real miracles and can’t be stretched to an ethereal type of philosophy, then it shakes us at the ground floor. The Bible puts flesh and blood on Jesus.

If you really knew that there was spiritual warfare and it wasn’t just “negative energy,” if you really knew there were angels and demons and heaven and hell, if you really knew that prayer could affect the substance of the universe, if you really knew that Jesus died for you on a dirty Roman cross — then, my guess is that the proportion to which you hold Scripture as true is the degree to which you’ll be transformed, and you’ll live in such a way that doesn’t bend when life bends you. I’ve witnessed it, in others and in me. The higher you hold Scripture, the more likely you’ll live in a Christ-like way even when it’s not easy, because the objective reality of a real God who really does something remains steadfast.

I think it’s absolutely commendable and necessary to investigate the Bible, just like you’re doing, and to discern all the riches it has for you as you wade through some of its tougher passages. There are parts of Scripture which are difficult, confusing, and frustrating to interpret literally (especially Genesis and Revelation), and I’m sure I’ll wrestle with those to the end. And of course, I still think that allegorical interpretation is an historical, qualified way to read Scripture, with its own advantages. The important thing is that we love Jesus and we love people, and that the reading of Scripture convicts us and moves us into grace-driven action.