Where are the liberals when this happens?

It appeared for a moment on Friday afternoon that SunTrust Banks had cut ties with David and Jason Benham, the two brothers who recently lost their reality TV show after activists protested their Christian views on abortion and gay marriage.

The Benhams initially said Friday that SunTrust had “pulled all of its listed properties with the Benham brothers’ bank-owned property business, which includes several [independent] franchisees across four states,” the Daily Caller reported.

Source
 

Now, I believe SunTrust has back tracked and re-listed the properties. However, where is the outcry from the liberals? There is a difference between not supporting gay marriage and being a bigot as far as I can tell. Let's see, bigot means:

a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)

Source


The emphasis should be on "dislike." If a Christian dislikes another person because [insert sin here] we have a problem, but if a Christian does not support the sin and yet loves the person, what's the problem?

Defining Skeptical Theism

LABELS  

Labels can allow an individual to compartmentalize his or her own beliefs, and these certain labels can permit others to differentiate the ideas one may hold.  In this post I will attempt to loosely explain what I think skeptical theism is.  However, in order to determine what I think a skeptical theist is or could be[1] I need to define what a theist believes in [theism] first.  Theism is a loaded word because theism can vary from theist to theist.  For example, one theist could believe in Molinism and the other theist could believe in Calvinism.  I can even entertain an instance where one theist could come from the school of Process Theism and the other theist could come from the school of Classical Theism.  So, there are particular concepts that could differ from one theist to the other.  Yet, I am content to define and categorize theism in following manner:

Theism (from Gk. Θεός, ‘God’).  The term, prob. first employed by R. *Cudworth in the preface to his Intellectual System (1678), was originally used as an opposite to ‘atheism’, and only later acquired its present definite meaning to denote a creed distinct also from *pantheism and esp. from *Deism (q.v.).  Theism, as the word is currently employed, may be said to denote a philosophical system which accepts a transcendent and personal God who not only created but also preserves and governs the world, the contingency of which does not exclude miracles and the exercise of human freedom.  Theism, therefore, leaves room for the Christian revelation and is in various forms the view of the world common to all orthodox Christian philosophers; it is also required by *Judaism and *Islam.  Apart from certain aberrations, usually of a pantheistic character, Theism was the basis of Christian philosophy down to modern times.  Relegated to the background by the Deistic philosophy of the 18th cent. and the *Hegelianism and materialism of the 19th, it has again found many competent and convinced exponents in the modern world.[2]

Furthermore, theism derives from the Greek word theos, which means God/god.  Theism, therefore, is a belief which adheres to the supposition that there is a God, and this God, is actively involved with whatever God created.

SKEPTICAL THEISM

I have briefly defined theism above, but what does it mean to be a skeptical theist?  A skeptical theist, of course, must be some sort of theist.  I personally use the "label" of skeptical theism, because if there is a God, and God is the greatest conceivable being—then it stands to reason I would be unable to [fully] understand everything God has done, does, and/or allows.  Some of the things God may have done might include allowing certain evil(s).  However, not being able to decipher something God allowed before or now does not mean the event will never be understood—nor does it mean God does not have a good reason for allowing or actively orchestrating the event; it just means at that moment we lack information to make an informed conclusion.  Further, the skeptical theists presupposes God's creation is ordered, designed, etc., and if the actions of God are organized and God is[3] also good; then, an event which appears as "needless evil" may actually not be.  Therefore, the skeptical theist believes he or she does not have knowledge proper, and I especially see no reason to commit to a conclusion that supposes God is responsible for needless evil when also considering the free will defense.

________________________________

[1] What I mean to say there is that I am trying to define what I understand a skeptical theist to be.  However, I think or I am open to the idea that people who would label themselves as skeptical theists could have certain variations in their beliefs from that of other skeptical theists of what it means to be a theist.

[2] F. L. Cross and Elizabeth A. Livingstone, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 3rd ed. rev. (Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2005). 1608.

[3] Some examples of God's goodness are God's incarnation and revelation in Jesus Christ.

Final Conclusions About the Heart

I wrote Part 1 and Part 2 of the Biblical applications/conceptions of the word “heart.”  Below are excerpts from my (first draft) class evaluation essay, which includes the conclusions I have come to embrace for the time being.  I wrote as follows:

There were classroom discussions and dialogues with regard to the meaning(s) of the “heart” in non-physical terms.  For example, we examined the word “lēb” which, according to the professor, signifies “man's spiritual and intellectual life” (2).  The definitions seem to form propositions for what could be labeled as the inner nature of man.  The professor claims the following about the heart: (a) it is at the “seat of emotions” and (b) it is also at the “seat of understanding and knowledge, of rational forces and powers” (2).  These two claims are vital in understanding what the heart really is, because the right and left parts of the brain are actually attributed with those specific characteristics.[1]  Emotions and logical thinking are mental abilities, and that means these abilities are controlled by the brain and what we also call mind.  Further, it is also important to note “lēb” and “lēbāb” could mean “heart, understanding, [and] mind” (Harris et al. 466).

In the Old Testament and New Testament the heart denotes a person's thoughts, which is a trait of the mind. The following entry on “Mind” encapsulates the discussion of heart, mind, spirit, and soul argument:

Since in the OT there was no separate word that could be used for the human mind, translators of the English versions have supplied other words (“soul,” “spirit,” or “heart”), as the context dictates. Thus, precise distinctions among these terms are hard to define. A person is a soul, having a spirit and a heart. Any of these terms may represent the mind. This means that the widely held distinction between the mind as the seat of thinking and the heart as the seat of feeling is alien to the meanings these terms carry in the OT.

It goes without saying there are linguistic challenges when translating the Hebrew Scriptures into English.  To make matters worse those who would like to differentiate between the heart and the mind have a major hurdle to overcome since soul, spirit, and heart can represent the mind.  It is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to use precision in distinguishing between the heart and mind, because they are used interchangeably.  In addition, the presumptions of attributing the heart as the originator of emotions and the mind as the instigator of logical thinking are not only absent from the biblical model, but they are distinctions that render ad hoc explanations of sorts—when taking science and the Bible into account.  Moreover, as one studies the Bible one sees progression and expansion in the meaning(s) of “heart,” which includes allusions to or descriptions of what is now known to be the mind.[2]

Let’s take Deuteronomy 6:5 as a great example of what I am talking about in the paragraph above.  Deuteronomy 6:5 states, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might” (NASB 95).  There are several things about this verse that I would like to draw attention to.  When one reads, “with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might,” “the pairing of לבב, “heart,” and נפשׁ, “being, soul-life,” suggests that a distinction of some sort is being made between mental and emotional energy and activity.  In terms of modern depth psychology, we would say that our love for God is to embrace the whole of our mind, both conscious and unconscious.  Self-discipline is required, in that we are to love God with all our might (מאד) as well” (Christensen 143).  Yet, when we look at the New Testament (i.e. Matthew 22:37 and Mark 12:30) the formula in Deuteronomy 6:5 has been changed.  It is as Keil and Delitzsch note,

In quoting this commandment, Matthew (Matthew 22:37) has substituted δαίνοια, “thy mind,” for “thy strength,” as being of especial importance to spiritual love, whereas in the LXX the mind (διάνοια) is substituted for the heart. Mark (Mark 12:30) gives the triad of Deuteronomy (heart, soul, and strength); but he has inserted “mind” (διάνοια) before strength (ἰσχύς), whilst in v. 33 the understanding (σύνεσις) is mentioned between the heart and the soul. Lastly, Luke has given the three ideas of the original passage quite correctly, but has added at the end, “and with all thy mind” (διάνοια). Although the term διάνοια (mind) originated with the Septuagint, not one of the Evangelists has adhered strictly to this version. (Dt. 6:5) 

It seems to me the writers of the Bible present conceptual ideas of what will later define and/or form what is purported when one uses the term mind.

My personal opinion regarding the tradition of how the word “heart” is used in the Bible is that it is used to illustrate the mind where it represents the inner-self, but also, the word is used metaphorically, presenting spiritual imageries.  For example, the Bible introduces the ideas of hardness or softness relative to the heart.  If a heart is “hard,” the individual rejects the things of God and remains locked in stubbornness.  If the heart is “soft,” that means God softens or is present in the person’s life to where the individual’s negative nature does not impede on the self, and he or she is able to “act” within the scope of a “soft” heart.[3]  Further metaphors and allegories are erected by way of the allusions to pureness or darkness of the heart.[4]  Interestingly, we also read in Scripture about renewing your mind (Romans 12:2).  Perhaps, this renewal means cleanliness and purity (soft heart), whereas depravity leads to a hardening of the heart (Romans 1:18-32).  As we can see then, the Bible also paints spiritual illustrations with the word “heart,” and in these “illustrations” we see a depiction of the status of man’s inner being.

So, what did I learn about the heart?  The “heart” in the Holy Scriptures is used as abstract concepts, which gives us a descriptive picture of the condition of the human mind.  The heart signifies the predisposed state of a person’s inner being.  Therefore, the heart is not only the collective wisdom and experience of who you have been and are now, but also at life’s end.

  

__________________________________

[1] There have been studies on the functions and development of the brain that show the different roles of the right and left parts of the brain.  See Thompson 33-36.

[2] Theological richness in the biblical model expands from the time of the Old Testament to the New Testament.  We see a clearer picture of who God is and an ethical leap in the New Testament from that of the Old Testament.  While the Old Testament brings a sort of foundational basis to the New Testament—the New Testament provides growth on the thoughts of the Old Testament.

[3] Ezekiel 36:26 provides a great inference point with regard to hardness and softness in the heart, as well as alluding to God’s intervention in a person’s heart.

[4] The ideas about pureness and darkness can be found in Matthew 5:8 and Ephesians 4:18, respectively.

Biographic Notes

Thompson, Curt. Anatomy of the Soul. Carrollton, TX: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 2010. Print.

Bibliography

Christensen, Duane L. Word Biblical Commentary: Deuteronomy. Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 2002. Print.

Course Syllabus. VA, 2011. Print.

Harris, R. Laird, et al. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. Electronic ed. Chicago: Moody Press, 1999. Print.

Keil, Carl Friedrich, and Franz Delitzsch. Commentary on the Old Testament. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002. Print.

“Mind.” Tyndale Bible Dictionary. Tyndale Reference Library. 2001. Print.

New American Standard Bible: 1995 Update. LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation, 1995. Print.