The Invention of Unambiguity
I woke up this morning with the germination of an argument in my head, and although I don't think it's quite finished, I wanted to get some of it down before I lost it, or before it's choked on the weeds of other things growing in my head.
So many moral arguments these days go back to the scene of the Fall in Genesis 3. Quotations of this passage, I have noticed through the years, seem to follow Milton more than they do the Bible, but that's neither here nor there. The point is that the humans' sin, according to some (and this being not an academic argument I won't adduce my sources), is made possible by the serpent's introduction of an ambiguity into God's command: "Did God really say, 'You must not eat of any tree in the garden'?" In the story, it's certainly true that this speech turns the conversation into channels the serpent wants; but is it the introduction of ambiguity?
Look at Eve's response: "God said we're not to eat of the tree in the middle of the garden, or even touch it, or we will surely die." But notice that God had not forbidden them to touch the tree; God merely told them not to eat of the tree. Eve, who in the story seems to have got her information secondhand from Adam, has invented an unambiguity -- or Adam has invented it for her. At its best, such an invention is piety, intended to make the command, and the tree, numinous. But surely an unfallen race has no need of piety?
I suggest that it is the invention of unambiguity that provides the serpent with its opportunity. Adam and Eve, who had not yet sinned and known it, nevertheless were primed to fall by inventing unambiguities for themselves. A better answer to the serpent would have been (and Adam, who had heard God the first time, and who was present -- many misogynists forget that -- ought to have provided it): "God said not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and we trust God." Of course, perhaps the best answer would have been no answer at all; but as we all know, Adam kept his mouth shut, letting Eve give the faulty answer; the serpent persuaded her of God's duplicity, and humanity fell.
So why, these days, is there so much talk about sin being the result of introducing ambiguities into God's Word? Far more sin -- indeed, the first sin -- is the result of humans' invention of unambiguity. Ambiguity, on the other hand, is what makes faith -- fides -- trust -- possible; put more strongly, faith can only exist in the presence of doubt. As C.S. Lewis remarks in his essay "On Obstinacy in Belief", one who has eliminated doubts about the Other is not trusting but knowing. And the entire history of God's faithful people at their best is a history not of knowledge but of trust: "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness." Abraham's credit was given hundreds of years before the Law of Moses was given...and yet we still insist that the return to God's laws will restore our credit, that the insistence upon as many unambiguities as possible will pull our fallen society to its feet.
God's command is actually much easier, and much harder, than that. God, the inventor of ambiguity, creates doubt so that faith, and the freedom to choose it, is possible. God desires us to step out into apparent nothingness, which is much harder than obeying a bunch of rules; but God also asks us to do so in the presence of the indefinite, which is much easier than walking in lockstep with the demands of other humans.
Which is why we should treat God's more direct commands with much more respect than we do when we bandy them about and declare the case closed -- no dialogue -- no questions.
This whole theme could proliferate, but I think I'm going to stop here.
I woke up this morning with the germination of an argument in my head, and although I don't think it's quite finished, I wanted to get some of it down before I lost it, or before it's choked on the weeds of other things growing in my head.
So many moral arguments these days go back to the scene of the Fall in Genesis 3. Quotations of this passage, I have noticed through the years, seem to follow Milton more than they do the Bible, but that's neither here nor there. The point is that the humans' sin, according to some (and this being not an academic argument I won't adduce my sources), is made possible by the serpent's introduction of an ambiguity into God's command: "Did God really say, 'You must not eat of any tree in the garden'?" In the story, it's certainly true that this speech turns the conversation into channels the serpent wants; but is it the introduction of ambiguity?
Look at Eve's response: "God said we're not to eat of the tree in the middle of the garden, or even touch it, or we will surely die." But notice that God had not forbidden them to touch the tree; God merely told them not to eat of the tree. Eve, who in the story seems to have got her information secondhand from Adam, has invented an unambiguity -- or Adam has invented it for her. At its best, such an invention is piety, intended to make the command, and the tree, numinous. But surely an unfallen race has no need of piety?
I suggest that it is the invention of unambiguity that provides the serpent with its opportunity. Adam and Eve, who had not yet sinned and known it, nevertheless were primed to fall by inventing unambiguities for themselves. A better answer to the serpent would have been (and Adam, who had heard God the first time, and who was present -- many misogynists forget that -- ought to have provided it): "God said not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and we trust God." Of course, perhaps the best answer would have been no answer at all; but as we all know, Adam kept his mouth shut, letting Eve give the faulty answer; the serpent persuaded her of God's duplicity, and humanity fell.
So why, these days, is there so much talk about sin being the result of introducing ambiguities into God's Word? Far more sin -- indeed, the first sin -- is the result of humans' invention of unambiguity. Ambiguity, on the other hand, is what makes faith -- fides -- trust -- possible; put more strongly, faith can only exist in the presence of doubt. As C.S. Lewis remarks in his essay "On Obstinacy in Belief", one who has eliminated doubts about the Other is not trusting but knowing. And the entire history of God's faithful people at their best is a history not of knowledge but of trust: "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness." Abraham's credit was given hundreds of years before the Law of Moses was given...and yet we still insist that the return to God's laws will restore our credit, that the insistence upon as many unambiguities as possible will pull our fallen society to its feet.
God's command is actually much easier, and much harder, than that. God, the inventor of ambiguity, creates doubt so that faith, and the freedom to choose it, is possible. God desires us to step out into apparent nothingness, which is much harder than obeying a bunch of rules; but God also asks us to do so in the presence of the indefinite, which is much easier than walking in lockstep with the demands of other humans.
Which is why we should treat God's more direct commands with much more respect than we do when we bandy them about and declare the case closed -- no dialogue -- no questions.
This whole theme could proliferate, but I think I'm going to stop here.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home