Light on a Candlestick, City on a Hill: How and Why The Metaphor is Misinterpreted

One of the most distressing behaviors of my church and others is to misinterpret the phrase "Ye are the light of the world."

In fairness, many non-religious institutions do the same. 

In context--and context does matter--the phrase "ye are the light of the world" in Matthew 5 occurs within the Sermon on the Mount and follows the Beatitudes. That is, Jesus has just praised the meek and poor in spirit; the merciful and pure in heart; those eager for righteousness; those who are worried or mournful or unsure; those who are persecuted; those who are peace-longing. He goes on to use deliberate hyperbole to commend the same listeners to not settle for legalistic arguments in their beliefs but rather to live by beliefs wholeheartedly: to treat partners with respect; to not run around boasting about one's religious adherence; to forgive enemies; to love enemies; to give away goods. 

The following lines come between the above described passages:

13 Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.

14 Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid.

15 Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.

16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.

Note that the first analogy is not "light" but salt, a substance that is nearly indistinguishable from sugar despite the immense difference in result (if you have ever made that mistake, you know what I mean). Very little salt is needed to change the constitution of a dish. 

Note, also, that "ye are the light of the world" is not a command. Listeners are not being told to show themselves off on a hill (candlestick). Within the chapter and alongside many of Jesus's other parables and sayings, such a command would be patently ridiculous. In fact, grandstanding is specifically condemned within the gospels and Paul's letters. (The analogy of salt also doesn't contain a command, only a warning.)

Jesus is discussing a result. Just as candles aren't placed under beds, then the outcome of belief--how a person behaves or tries to behave--will be noticed. Just as salt can make a difference, so can acceptance of Christ's words in one's life make a difference, including accepting what the Beatitudes imply about what truly matters: what behavior should be honored, emulated, and given respect. 

Again and again, the New Testament makes the following arguments (see more extensive list below):

1. Jesus is the light.

2. Blessings come from God through Jesus Christ and Christ's example.

3. Behaving in the name of Christ is an action among people.

4. Saying, "This is in Christ's name" is not the same as an act being something Christ would sanction. 

Now, people have disagreed, in good faith, about the nuts and bolts of the above list, including the connection between works and grace. They disagree about priesthoods and rituals. They disagree about hierarchies and church managements. They disagree about the nature of God and the afterlife. 

My point here is that taken in context (rather than removed out of context as a kind of ha-ha texting "slam"), the light Christians shine/hold up/hold onto and Christ's example/teachings are expected to correspond, as much as ordinary, fallible, constantly trying and trying again humans can get them to correspond.

Arguing a "religious right" to do whatever one wishes because one claims the name of Christ and making that argument without humility (for standing laws) or empathy (for honest disagreement) or pureness of heart (by using sneaky methods) or good taste (okay, that one is subjective but I personally stand by it) is not a Christian act. 

It's prideful. 

This behavior is unfortunately quite common in our culture and not just in religions and on social media: that is, people see an outcome (being a light, getting a good job, getting the candidate they want, achieving a particular life goal), an end that may be defensibly good. So they move the result/outcome to the beginning of the process. Instead of "I will try to live better, work hard, get an education, vote, sacrifice to achieve what I hope will happen..."), the process becomes "I will make this happen today, right now, instantly and if it doesn't, the system has to change until I get what I want."

Again--there may be valid reasons to change a system. But "I didn't take the time--I don't have to--because what I want is already justified by my label" is not one of those reasons. 

Who is employing a label doesn't matter either. Right. Left. Religious. Non-religious. Whatever group. Doesn't matter. A label does not ensure anything by itself for anyone. 

The Calvinist-trained New Englanders who read The Book of Mormon would have recognized the difference between behavior as a reflection of grace/belief/actions/taking-the-time and behavior as a kind of instant gratification performance (they argued about the difference, which is how I know they would have recognized it). In sum, The Book of Mormon backs the position that beliefs and grace show themselves through character:

If it be called in my name, then it is my church if it so be that [they = the church as a group of people is] built upon my gospel. Verily, I say unto you that ye are built upon my gospel; therefore, ye shall call whatsoever things ye do call in my name; therefore, if ye call upon the Father [on behalf of] the church, if it be in my name, the Father will hear you. And if it so be that the church is built upon my gospel, then will the Father show forth his own works in it.

But if it be not built upon my gospel and is built upon the works of men or upon the works of the devil, verily I say unto you they have joy in their works for a season and by and by, the end cometh, and they are hewn down and cast into the fire from whence there is no return. For their works do follow them. (3 Nephi 27:8-12, my emphasis)

An earlier chapter and verse in 3 Nephi further clarifies what it means to shine a light. It isn't about buildings--buildings are tools to an end; not the end themselves:

Therefore, hold up your light that it may shine unto the world. Behold I am the light which ye shall hold up—that which ye have seen me do. (3 Nephi 18:24, my emphasis)

I was worried several years ago that the adoption of the name of Christ within my church's URL would be a problem. At the local micro level, it isn't. People try on a day-to-day basis to do what is right in their personal lives and with each other. I'm not entirely sure how much the theology (which I do believe in) has changed (from when I determined I believed in it). But the behavior is much the same. People are mostly trying to be good/better, including me.

And, to be entirely fair, many projects at the macro level, such as medical missions, continue to move forward as departments simply get on with things. 

But "using" Christ in some macro matters has become disturbing and unacceptable. 

It starts by mistaking ends for means. 

What the scriptures state about Jesus Christ and light:

1. Jesus Christ is the light. 

I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life. (John 8:12)

As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world. (John 9:5)

[A] light for revelation to the Gentiles (Simeon's blessing, Luke 2:32) 

The Lamb is [the city's] light. (Revelation 21:23)

Behold, [Christ] is the life and the light of the world. Behold, he is the word of truth and righteousness. (Alma 38:9)

I am the light and the life of the world. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. (3 Nephi 9:18)

2. Blessings come from God through Christ and Christ's example. 

For it is God who commanded light to shine out of darkness, who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. (2 Corinthians 4:6)

Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning. (James 1:17)

But behold, I say unto you that ye must pray always, and not faint; that ye must not perform any thing unto the Lord save in the first place ye shall pray unto the Father in the name of Christ, that he will consecrate thy performance unto thee, that thy performance may be for the welfare of thy soul. (2 Nephi 32:2)

[T]he light which did light up his mind, which was the light of the glory of God, which was a marvelous light of his goodness -- yea, this light had infused such joy into his soul, the cloud of darkness having been dispelled, and that the light of everlasting life was lit up in his soul, yea, he knew that this had overcome his natural frame, and he was carried away in God -- (Alma 19:6)

Behold I am the light; I have set an example for you. (3 Nephi 18:16)

3. Behaving in the name of Christ is an action by an individual amongst other individuals.

And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me. (Matthew 8:5)

For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. (Matthew 18:20, in which the context is forgiving others; again, a single scripture appears to justify dismissing people from that gathering; the context, however, maintains that unending forgiveness should be the norm.)

To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all who in every place call on the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours. (1 Corinthians 1:2, my emphasis)

For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Walk as children of light. (Ephesians 5:8)

But behold, I say unto you that ye must pray always, and not faint; that ye must not perform any thing unto the Lord save in the first place ye shall pray unto the Father in the name of Christ, that he will consecrate thy performance unto thee, that thy performance may be for the welfare of thy soul. (2 Nephi 32:9)

Too many scriptures in Acts to list here.

Basically, Ammon and Alma/Amulek in The Book of Mormon.

4. Saying, "This is in Christ's name" is not the same as an act being something Christ would sanction. (I'm not a huge fan of "watch out--wrath is coming" verses, and I think the loving, positive verses within scriptures far outweigh the warnings, but such scriptures do need to be taken into consideration since they are part of the context.) 

For many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and will deceive many. (Matthew 24:5)

Nevertheless the solid foundation of God stands, having this seal: “The Lord knows those who are His” (2 Timothy 2:19)

You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? Therefore by their fruits you will know them. (Matthew 7:16, 20)

But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If, therefore, the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness! (3 Nephi 13:23)

For their works do follow them. (3 Nephi 27:12--the similar verse in Revelations is about good deeds following the righteous. Here, the verse is used to paint a darker image, rather like a rabid dog following the worldly-minded. Current-day New Englanders may picture Cujo.) 

Well-Worth Reading

No matter my personal politics, I fully agree with William Dereiewicz's essay about "the right side of history" and why it is such an unbearable phrase. I also utterly agree with his points about the disgusting use of apocalyptic language to try to motivate people and justify actions: "There is No Right Side of History."

And his book about Jane Austen is really good. 

* * *  

David French again! His five points in the following article are right on the mark: "Against the Extremism of the American Masculinity Debate".

I love when someone says succinctly and directly what I've been trying to say. 

My comment on "toxic masculinity"--

"Toxic masculinity" is such a vile phrase. Imagine if "toxic" was attached to any other generalized noun, such as "femininity" or "animal lovers" or "ballet dancers" or "crossing guards" or "classical music listeners."

* * *

What I love about Andrew Doyle is how generous he is with other people's motives--he is truly balanced and reasonable!

* * * 

 

I am not a fan of mixing my religion with politics. I don't make decisions about God based on politics--never have, never will. 

On occasion, this refusal has put me at odds with both sides of the political aisle. The message, "You're supposed to hate the world! You're supposed to embrace the appropriate political doomsdaying!" is intensely powerful from both sides. 

I read too much history--with all its mess and complications--to buy into the argument. Streamlined narratives continually miss the point.

So I don't make decisions about God based on what I suspect any deity worth worshiping perceives as so much dross. 

Consequently, I have been wary of reading David French, even though I very much enjoy his writing. 

This essay is well-worth passing on:

Commitment to Kindness

As Sharon says to Rusty, "Be kind and be safe." 

It's harder than it sounds. Honor may be an old-fashioned word. It still matters. 

Untrustworthy Arguments Used by Progressives--But Conservatives are Also Culpable

The political landscape in America is currently filled with distasteful arguments--many of those arguments come from the left. 

However, it would be incorrect to say that these arguments are exclusively "leftist." The various arguments below are ones that I not only hear now but that I heard growing up from conservative groups and in my (relatively) conservative church. 

I believe that conservatives, specifically religious conservatives, need to take responsibility for these arguments if they are to combat them.

Below are some common untrustworthy arguments. I present the arguments. I then discuss why religion, specifically, has some justification to use these arguments. I then explain why I feel that even religious institutions and individuals should question the use of such arguments. 

Untrustworthy Arguments

Doomsdaying

"The world is falling to pieces--it is so much worse than it has ever been." 

This argument demonstrates the capacity for humans to place themselves at the center of everything, including time. So many periods/eras have included upheavals, from the Reformation in England to the 1960s. And yet humans go right on insisting that "no one has ever seen times like this," emphasizing the self-centered notion that all of history has led up to now. There is often an accompanying inability to learn from the past--to comprehend, for example, that abstracted rage can have truly horrific outcomes in which members of the same party turn on each other (the French Revolution, for instance). 

When I was growing up, my parents did not use this argument. They wanted me to graduate from high school, go to college, earn a degree, get a job, and move out.  Doomsdaying would not have been conducive to that end. 

I did, however, encounter the argument at church. It was used to defend the need for religion in the face of a disintegrating world.

Body versus Spirit 

"The body is dangerous and dirty while the spirit is the pure 'real self.'"

It is easy to blame this argument on religion, but I hear it these days as much from academic theorists as from fundamentalists. In fact, it is so common an argument in current and historical literature/popular culture, I can only assume it is part of the human experience. The first time one hits one's "funny bone"--or has troubles in the bathroom--the thought, "My body is against me" will rear its head. 

Unfortunately, the distaste for the body is often accompanied by a 1950s (dare I say, Victorian) cliche: people ignoring or denying that their physical bodies have biological functions. The body v. spirit argument is also often accompanied by anti-science attitudes or, these days, science politicized to the point of meaninglessness. 

I did not encounter this argument at home. My religious beliefs state that the body is good, the physical experience is good, and the worst sins or temptations come from pride, a sin of the spirit. Furthermore, my father is a physicist while my mother is an artist. Praising the physical form was common in the household in which I was reared.  My parents embraced the theology of our church. 

Our church membership, however, is (still) largely culturally Protestant. The idea of bad body versus good spirit crops up now and again, usually in off-hand comments. When I was growing up, it was, unfortunately, also associated with a vaguely unsympathetic attitude toward science, namely, that science was the worldly enemy to spiritual belief.  

Conflation of Know and Believe

"I KNOW this is true." (But "this" is actually a belief.) 

The conflation of know and believe appears to occur when the pursuit of truth (scientific, aesthetic, religious) loses ground to relativism. The pursuit of truth assumes, as Mulder would say, The truth is out there, even if it cannot be pinned down. People may disagree about what that truth entails but ultimately they agree that it can be found (or parts of it can be found) if diligently hunted for. 

In comparison, relativism promotes the idea that truth is whatever the individual states it is. After all, people do experience life as individuals. And self-expression can produce impressive explosions of creativity in art and music and thought.

However, few institutions are willing to pursue relativism to its natural end: a bunch of iconoclastic individuals following their own intensely individual codes without reference to an accepted ethical belief system.

Rather than return to the pursuit of truth (an endeavor that takes discipline, effort, time, and a willingness to self-correct), many institutions fall back on rules, allegiance to the group, and promises of utopia. Their rules grow and grow, becoming increasingly rigid and demanding, especially as members of those institutions or cliques conflate belief with knowledge. In an effort to produce (easy) stability, the group becomes the holder of what-is-true. An abstract realization of one's experiences--the story I tell myself or the story the group tells me about me--becomes FACT. 

It isn't. 

Even organizations that prize the hunt for truth are influenced by the ideas and language around them. Claiming, "I know" appears (on the surface) safer than claiming, "I believe." Consequently, in the past few years, the number of people in my church who "know" the church is true rather than "believing/having faith in/hoping" has increased. 

As a result, not only is the language of knowledge under fire, the language of faith (regarding religion, art, poetry, literature, personal narratives, and humor) is being corrupted and lost. Rigid literalism is gaining sway in the very areas that the language of faith was meant to protect.

Lack of Context

"It doesn't matter what that text actually says any more than it matters what actually happened in the past. People who argue for context are ___________."

Not good, according to this argument. 

A hunt for context means asking, What does this text actually mean? Will it help if I understand the text as the author intended it be understood? What actually happened in the past? Will it help if I understand the people back then, including their mindsets and conditions? 

Those who pursue truth will answer, "Yes, it will help." 

Here's the snag: researching context takes time. It also involves humility--accepting that answers might change as new information gets uncovered. 

It is easier for those who eschew the pursuit of truth to fall back instead on name-calling: People who argue in favor of context are everything-phobic and everything-ist. 

Up through my 20s, people in my church occasionally accused me or members of my family of being "intellectual(ists)." It is a damaging accusation in many conservative circles since it raises the specter of the Ivory Tower academic who abstracts basic truths into nothingness (see above).

However, in this case, I and members of the family were not extolling abstract relativism. Quite the opposite! We were suggesting that learning more about a text, person, scripture, place, and time--its physical reality--could advance understanding. 

The accusers (sadly, ironically) were practicing a form of relativism (likely not to their knowledge): "All I have to do is read this scripture and ask what it means to me. Then I will have a spiritual experience which no one can gainsay since it is a form of 'knowledge.'" 

To put this another way, the accusers were relying on a very attractive intellectual theory to justify their name-calling. 

Utopia as an Immediate End Goal

"If you would only...then the world would be perfect." 

Life is messy and difficult. The pursuit of truth, as mentioned above, takes time and energy--and humility since it involves the ability to change as new information is revealed and tested. When people pursue truth, utopia is not possible (not in mortality). New information will change the so-called utopian society immediately. Goals will change. People will change. They will make mistakes. Beliefs will change. Mistakes will occur. A perfect society is something we can hope for (believe in) and maybe even strive for. But it cannot be guaranteed. Based on the vagaries of human nature, it is likely not even possible. 

Lots of politicians (from the beginning of time) have tried to guarantee it anyway. 

They are lying. 

Regarding religion: I have seen my church alter over the years from a church of preparation to a church that focuses on getting its members into heaven (utopia).

The church of preparation still exists--and the church that will get its members into heaven was always there: it may be impossible from a religious perspective to disentangle these two perspectives. Human beings being what they are, it may be equally impossible from a political perspective. Humans are fully capable of always imagining a different (better) future/life than the one we seem headed towards/inhabiting. 

However, when getting people into heaven (utopia) becomes the only narrative, blasphemy and legalism are not far behind. It is one thing to encourage people to do better, to prepare people (in religious terms) to meet Christ and/or God and/or... 

It is another to present a checklist (with acceptable vocabulary) toward achieving that better world. 

Most religions, I believe, fall somewhere between those two positions. They believe in a hereafter. They focus on helping people survive the here-and-now while giving them rituals and daily practices to pursue/build a relationship with deity. 

Many of these religions can also be pushed by outside pressures into providing guarantees/checklists/acceptable vocabulary, often in the fruitless wish to "compete" with more worldly institutions and political ideologies. After all, politicians love to guarantee outcomes when all they can truly do is present possible policies and programs that may help create good outcomes.

Why Religion Has Some Justification For These Arguments

Doomsdaying

End of times is a constant theme in most religions, from Ragnarök to the Second Coming. To an extent, it is the job of theology to tackle the big picture of what is to come.

Religions almost always present some solution or amelioration to this ending. It's coming--here's how to prepare/deal.

Politicians who rely solely on doomsdaying don't seem to be offering much. (Everything stinks! Vote for me anyway!) Religions should keep in mind that after awhile, doomsdaying pales and even becomes a little samey.

Body versus Spirit

As stated above, this split seems to be such a fundamentally human reaction (my "self" versus the uncooperative body I have that needs new eyeglasses), I'm not sure the dichotomy can be entirely removed from human perception. 

Many religions at least offer a way to deal with the uncooperative body. And many of them have also (to some degree) backed off the anti-science sentiments, as those sentiments have proved increasingly unhelpful for biological, mammalian beings experiencing life in the physical realm. 

Conflation of Know and Believe

There is no justification for this conflation. It confuses what constitutes knowledge with personal preference. It debases the language of belief. It creates untenable and increasingly abstracted approaches to everyday life. Religious individuals and groups need to cut it out. When politicians do it, it is "nails on the chalkboard" irritating (I am old enough to use that analogy).

Lack of Context

Lack of context is understandable in every facet of society. It is tremendously demanding and time-consuming to insist that people learn stuff. In addition, most religious groups see their members sporadically, especially now-a-days. Educating an entire membership may not even be possible.

And, let's be honest, relativism is to an extent unavoidable. We are all individuals who have to each separately deal with the stimuli of the world. "This is what this event/scripture means to me" is always going to be a factor. The personal conversion/testimony/internal change (that can lead to external changes) is often a seminal element of a religion's attraction/meaning. 

I advocate religious groups keep the focus on the individual but be less obnoxious about avoiding context. Getting more information is a good thing, not a scary thing. C.S. Lewis argued that a believer need never fear an argument based on logic or information. It was the demon Screwtape, writing to Wormwood, who suggested the use of labels as opposed to grounded reasons.

Utopia as an End Goal

Like body versus spirit, the desire for utopia seems to be built into the human condition. As Breasted said, "It is important that the modern world should realise that the Messianic vision had a history of more than a thousand years before the Hebrew nation was born. This supreme form of social idealism is our inheritance from the human past."

The historical evidence that pursuing utopia before all else almost always ends in mass executions, pogroms, holocausts, witch hunts, terminations, loss of income, and other destructive events is often, unfortunately, ignored. It shouldn't be.

However, it should also be acknowledged that human beings are not going to give up wondering, pondering, believing in utopia, either before or after death. The atheists/cynics are just going to have to deal.

I suggest that religious groups--and this includes both the progressive members within my own church and that church's leadership--should cease obsessing about who gets into heaven. Pondering utopia may be part of the human condition. Deciding who belongs there (and why other people are wrong or right about who belongs there) is an impulse that should be fought. 

When a religion is doing its job, I believe it focuses the individual on individual growth--as a person, as a member of society--in regards to God (whomever one understands God to be). It is preparation theology. It is aided by information and context but ultimately it accesses and speaks to the non-"know" part of the brain, the part of the brain that enjoys art and music and poetry and undefinable moments of joy and pleasure and even sorrow.

I personally believe that these moments ultimately translate into a transcendent physical reality. In the meantime, religion can--through story, through music, through art, through visions, through dreams, through scripture--help people contemplate those bigger, more numinous ideas and perhaps even produce story, music, art, visions, dreams, and texts of their own. (There is admittedly a social purpose to religion, which I would not by any means denigrate--that is, religion also helps people come together, raise their kids, follow basic civilized behaviors that in the long run keep them and society stable. An entirely valid purpose but one I will save for a later post.) 

Determining who gets into heaven is God's job, not the religion's job.

Why The Above Arguments Harm Even Religion

Hopefully, the reason is self-explanatory. Enticing people through fear, belittling the physical experience, mocking scientific research, ignoring the difference between information/facts and beliefs, shrugging off the past and those who lived in the past, all while promising a kind of country club access to utopia--none of these arguments/attitudes are (1) helpful; (2) compassionate; (3) necessary. 

And they feed similar arguments in other far less desirable and far less justifiable venues within our society.