Grace

Posted on April 27, 2009
Filed Under Philosophy, Religion | 31 Comments

6D0030C5-7404-4548-B284-EF07A7B29B96.jpg

I’ve been thinking about Grace a lot after a whole series of discussions at LDS-Herm. In a certain way Grace is the most secular of concepts. We are all here with a world around us that precedes us. If we reject the idea of God as a kind of cog which makes a metaphysical contraption run (the first cause of Aristotle) then Grace is all about us. A Grace even an atheist could appreciate.

The idea of grace (in as general a form as one can make it) is some gift that is undeserved. Thus it is essential tied to the question of economy. As soon as one deserves some event, on the basis of some agreement or rule, then it simply isn’t grace. This notion causes all sorts of problems in religion, culminating perhaps in the Calvinistic approach that God simply makes everything in the world and nothing we do matters. God picks who he will to save. The atheist, on the other extreme, has no God thus all is undeserved except perhaps to the degree that things are entailed by natural law.

Because I see Grace as that which is beyond economy I see Grace as essential an eruption into an established order. The example I often give is of some axiomatic system (a set of rules). A new truth appears that simply can’t be thought in terms of the prior system. The only way to make sense of it is to create a new set of rules to explain it. After which an other eruption appears. Thus to me Grace is tied to a kind of continual revelation. Secularized, this is the idea that the world is not causally determined but constantly being reconfigured. Evolving.

The danger with secularizing Grace too much though is that we perhaps get too separated from the founding metaphor – Grace in Christianity. Further I think the Mormon angle is interesting. Both because Mormonism thinks things differently (due to our materialism) but also because with a God always already in the world, Mormonism’s rejection of creation ex nihilo demands a rethinking of Grace that might be useful for secular purposes as well. If nothing else Mormonism (or at least the major forms of Mormon theology) demands an explanation of what Grace means if God is within the universe organizing it rather than metaphysically creating it. The Mormon view of the universe thus has a certain affinity to the Atheistic conception. So the Mormon conception of Grace might be of worth secularly as well.

What I want to do is rethink some of my past discussions and post them here. To begin I think I want to turn to unique Mormon scripture and ask what is different in Mormon conceptions of Grace.

Related posts:

  1. Mormonism, Grace and Works
  2. Death, Embodiment and Grace
  3. Grace II
  4. Speculative Grace
  5. Mormon Free Will Redux
  6. A Joseph Smithian Metaphysics?

Comments

31 Responses to “Grace”
1 Michael Dorfman on April 28th, 2009 4:49 am

As usual, forgive my (profound) ignorance of Mormon theology, but wouldn’t the combination of the rejection of ex nihilo creation and this notion of grace as an irruption lead to an infinite regress? That is to say, there must necessarily then be some grace preceding the irruption of God– which came from where?

I’m not sure that “grace” means much, from an atheist perspective, as it would be denuded of any positive connotations; “grace” would mean “that which is”, which isn’t necessarily very good at all– in fact, to a Buddhist, it’s all suffering.

Clark, great post :)

I’m looking forward to your work with the nitty-gritty of various texts.

Michael, I believe you’re right to say that for Mormons, there is no point of origin.

However, I’d disagree slightly with your assessment of Buddhism: there, grace does mean something like “that which is” and this is the key to the Buddhist claim of “universal suffering.” However, for a Buddhist, it is also the key to universal liberation: grace/liberation is suffering that is not rejected out of hand. (Though I’d argue as well that this is also not a bad Christian definition of grace.)

3 Parker McGee on April 28th, 2009 10:35 am

I think you misunderstand Calvinism. Basic Calvinist belief of the election simply states that, “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23), and thus, no one can be saved in themselves. It is only by the grace of God that one can be saved. We simply cannot reach out and grab hold of God, but we must allow Him to grab ahold of us. To think differently means that it is not God who choses who gets into His Kingdom, but sinful humans, which does not make biblical or philosophical sense.

This beautifully shows grace. It isn’t a cheap thing, but rather God sent His own Son into the world, so that we might be saved. His own Son had to die on the cross in order that we could be saved. The beauty of it is astounding. It’s not fair. We should be the ones who died, but yet God loved us so that His Son died, that we may have life. How glorious is that grace?

Michael, my sense is that Badiou offers an out there and perhaps that’s one reason why Adam found him interesting. Badiou isn’t exactly the clearest writer, introducing a lot of terms without really explaining what he means by them. So I’m still struggling there.

With regards to God in LDS theology that is something to consider and something I’ve brought up with Adam. Adam takes grace (secularized) as basically immanence. This kind of grace then enables God to give other kinds of grace via his organizing. So in that sense there is no vicious regress any more than there’s a regress if I go up to a stranger and give them a present.

Of course Adam, since he’s here, can speak for himself better than I can. And I’ve enjoyed discussing both Buddhism and Stoicism with him. (And both of those movements offer some interesting parallels with Mormonism in some ways)

Parker, that’s sort of what I was getting at with Calvinism. God simply picks whom he wishes to save. The problem to non-Calvinists isn’t just that it’s not fair but that it is massively unfair since God is responsible for it all. I think the move to absolve God of some responsibility is necessary for many of us to buy it in the least. In other words a situation where what we do matters but God’s action is still grace.

5 Parker McGee on April 28th, 2009 1:39 pm

Clark, I don’t understand. Don’t you worship a sovereign God who created the heavens and the earth? He’s already responsible for it all. Are you saying that your will is greater than God’s will? His universal will already makes him responsible for all things.

“What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! For he says to Moses, ‘I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.’ So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, ‘For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.’ So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.” (Romans 9:14–18)

Mormons think created means organized. They don’t think he created ex nihilo. But even in other traditions some say that if God creates a robust free will then he isn’t responsible for the choices entailed by that free will. His power is that he could take away the free will at anytime.

I suspect most Mormons look at the Calvinist metaphysics of God and see God as unjust in such a scheme.

7 Parker McGee on April 28th, 2009 2:23 pm

But reading the Bible, which Mormons do hold as the Word of God, Paul clearly states in Romans 9 (part of which I quoted above), that God indeed is just by showing some mercy and hardening others. I don’t see how a Mormon who believes the Bible could think of God as being unjust, then.

The question is how to read Romans 9. The metaphysical twist given it by Calvinists tends to be seen as unjust and their exegesis wrong. Even among non-Mormon Christians the Calvinist reading is not the main one by any means.

The typical (but not universal) Mormon reading is that God provides grace which we can freely accept or reject. Further Mormons typically don’t see grace as a one time thing but enabling which leads us grace by grace. That is as we take hold of grace we are able to take hold of more. The common analogy being God giving you a ladder to climb out of a ravine but our being free to climb the ladder or not.

The actual position ends up being a tad more complex and we’ll get to that in time.

9 Parker McGee on April 28th, 2009 6:45 pm

Clark, I suppose we could argue about this for a while. I appreciate your insight and look forward to reading the future articles.

I want to leave you with one thing to ponder; don’t feel like you need to respond to it, as I don’t want to take up any more of your time that you could spend writing more articles! Here it is: is God just in loving Jacob but hating Esau? (Malachi 1:2–3, Romans 9:13)

To which I’d merely turn the question around and ask what the author meant by love and hate and whether God could have reasons for that based upon the figures in question. i.e. in the context of a relationship.

Clark, maybe you can help me better understand what you and Adam are talking about. You both seem to agree that in a non-theist/secular world, grace could still exist and would be a cause to be grateful for. My question is, show gratitude/be grateful to whom? For what?

I guess I could be grateful that I was born better off than someone else, or that I am just more lucky that others, but who/what could I show that gratefulness to?

I probably just do not understand what you are talking about. If that is the case, please just ignore this.

Grateful for what is given. Does gratitude only make sense when directed towards a person?

Roughly the thing is grace as what is given independent of whether God gives it. Adam wants to give this a more Stoic/Buddhist thrust.

Clark – Using your definition of grace “(The idea of grace (in as general a form as one can make it) is some gift that is undeserved.)” Who is to say but what I deserve everything I get in life? I work hard for everything I have. I was born smart, just lucky for that one, it just is, nothing to be thankful for. I suppose I could be thankful, but how would I direct that thankfulness? Eventually, I believe it will come back to, I just make my own luck. Do I really need to be thankful for that?

Who does the 800 pound gorilla need to be grateful to? He can do/get anything he wants. That is until the 2000 pound gorilla comes into his neighborhood.

I cannot help but think that, in a secular world, it is strictly a matter of the survival of the fittest. You get what you earn. Nothing to really be grateful for.

I asked the question over on LDS-Phil, what motivates an atheist to be good. No one responded, so I will ask it here. If you are the 800 pound gorilla on the block, what motivates you to be good?

Well, with the secularized form of grace you should be grateful for what is “luck.” (i.e. what can’t be explained deterministically from your choices) Consider the existence of the universe itself. Shouldn’t you be grateful for that which enables you to have the life you have?

The 800 pound gorilla should be grateful for being such and for not suffering disease etc.

As to what motivates one to be good, an atheist can say a combination of reason and instinct. The idea that only theism of some stripe can provide motivation just seems incorrect.

Yes I could be, not sure I should be, grateful for what enables me to have the things I have. But that brings us to what really underlies this question.

What do the poor of the world have to be grateful for? If you have watched your children starve to death, and you are dying of AIDS at a very young age, what do you have to be greatful for? If there is no belief in an after life promising something better, is there really anything the poor can be greatful for?

The 800 pound gorilla can be greatful for his size and health, until the 2000 pound gorilla shows up. Then all bets are off. When the bigger one gets old and a younger 800 pounder shows up, it creates a very vicious circle of survival of the fittest. Any gratitude at all would be ephemeral at best.

I agree that only a belief in god can motivate one to be good, just seems to be incorrect. But when I try and think it through, I always come up on the short side of reasons why atheists are motivated to be good. It always comes to, I am good to others, because I want them to be good to me. I find no intrinsic good within that kind of reason. It might work in a world where everyone is equal, but we live in a world where we have to have anti-trust laws to help protect the little guys from the bigger ones. And, (not sure if this reason is fair in a secular discussion) but if the natural man is an enemy to God, then without a change of heart, it would seem that man has a hard time doing good for the right reasons. Whats in it for me seems to be the general rule of thumb. That seems to be shallow/empty/void of goodness.

The poor of the world have a lot to be grateful for and a lot to complain about. The fact one has things that are painful doesn’t entail that the things that one ought be grateful for aren’t there. Adam has some great thoughts along these lines.

I probably will get to these points.

As to the final point, I think this issue is what is motivation. What is it about a belief in God that motivates you? If we can conceive of good independent of God (and I think we have to so as to avoid the Euthypro dilemma) then the question of motivation gets more complex. That is if one can ask what motivates God then why doesn’t that work for the atheist?

To add, I’m not sure God helps with the examples you gave. If say a peasant in India is miserable does saying there is a God really help? One could say that life after death gives some hope since there will be an end. But can one believe in life after death without God? Certainly. One could say it is that extension that enables gratitude but I don’t think that follows either. One can appreciate what one has when poor – I’ve certainly met many “miserable” who do that. And one can be dissatisfied and unhappy while with luxury (look at all the rich suicides). There is something else tied to suffering. I think Buddhist philosophy offers a lot here. I think, because of our particular cosmology of the relationship of God to reality, that the Buddhist tradition offers a lot to Mormons to consider. So I’ve enjoyed some of Adam’s work here. It’s certainly made me think.

Clark – First of all, let me say that when I said I was smart, it was a gross exaggeration used to make a point. I would not want to confuse anyone here as to what smart is. At best, I am probably average. Now on to this non-theists grace.

I spent a lot of time this weekend thinking about this. I have to assume that Adam really is smart, therefore, he must have a good reason to present this idea of his. The problem is, I just cannot get my small mind around it. I cannot make it work for me.

Grace to me, is a gift that is undeserved. To me, a gift has to come from something or someone. A giver of the gift. And it has to be accepted to be appreciated. To be heart changing, is must be something I could not do for myself. And it must be lasting, infinite in nature. Anything less than this, is not what I would call the grace of the gospels.

The 800 pound gorilla can be grateful for everything he has, but it is not heart changing and certainly not infinite. The poor person in India can be grateful for people like Richard Stearns of “World Vision” or a Mother Tressa that tries to ameliorate their suffering, but again, it is not long lasting. Even if it lasts for 80 years, it is not infinite, it has a stopping point.

As you point out, being wealthy and healthy does not equate with happiness or gratitude. And if we through in good looks, what else is there to be greatful for in a non-theistic world? These things seem to be insufficient to make one happy/greatful.

The grace of the gospels, the good news, is that it comes from unconditional love, accepts you just the way you are and lasts forever. Whatever you lack in this life will added to you in the next life. That is what is heart changing to me. That understanding makes me greatful for the gift I have been given. It makes me want to share the gift with others. How is one suppose to hear/know about the gift/grace is they are not told about it?

Your question about why cannot an atheist be motivated by the same thing that motivates God is a good one, and very complicated. I believe in comes down to what Terry Warner says in his “Bonds That Makes Us Free.” Until a light comes into your life, you will not do good things for the right reasons.

I used to try and be good to my wife because I wanted her to be good to me. Not the right reason, neither of us were happy. After finding grace, and reading Terry’s book, I now try and be nice to my wife just because I like being nice, I expect nothing in return for being nice. It has made a huge difference in our marriage.

Terry does not say what he thinks the light is that must come into ones life that makes the change of heart, but I believe it is grace. Whatever it is, it is an undeserved gift that changes hearts. Can it come from a secular world? I suppose it could, but as yet, I have not seen it outside of a grace of the gospels.

I suppose I should read a book for dummies about Buddhism before I shut the door on this. I too like things that make me think.

The 800 pound gorilla can be grateful for everything he has, but it is not heart changing and certainly not infinite.

But is gratitude necessary for grace? That we can be ungrateful seems a characteristic of even Christian grace. Likewise what do we mean by infinite? It seems to me that a secular grace must of necessity be infinite.

The problem I think you see is that grace in a religious context is transformative (or the promise of a transformation) in a way secular grace is. Secular grace is transformative (since it is the condition necessary for transformation) but it doesn’t have an “end goal” the way religious grace does. I’m not sure that means it’s not grace though. Just that it isn’t religious grace.

I must be in way over my head here, and simply do not understand what is being discussed. I did a google search for non-theistic grace, trying to get a getter understanding of what we are talking about, but I did not find anything that was of help.

Perhaps, when you get some extra time, you could offer an example of what non-theistic grace is, how it works etc. It is easy to show what a religious grace is, Phillip Yancey does an excellent job in his books. I suspect it will look a lot like the grace of the gospels. If it does, then I have another question.

If what you and Adam are saying, is that there really is no difference in the two types of grace, then, why do we need God at all? If I can do everything with a non-theistic/secular belief that I can with a christian belief, would that not make christianity irrelevant, meaningless, a hoax on all of those that believe it is true?

21 Michael Dorfman on May 5th, 2009 11:32 am

CEF: If I can do everything with a non-theistic/secular belief that I can with a christian belief, would that not make christianity irrelevant, meaningless, a hoax on all of those that believe it is true?

Let’s turn the question around– what, if anything, do you think that you can “do” that an atheist can’t? There are lots of folks out there living happy, fulfilling, moral lives without reference to God or Christ, who don’t feel that they are missing out on something…

Hello Michael,

If there is no life after death, no God in heaven, no savior of mankind, then the answer to your question is, nothing. If on the other hand, what Christians believe is true, then what I can do, is try and share that knowledge with others. But I don’t think this is really an answer to your question.

You seem to want to know, why can’t atheist be just as good/moral as religious folks. That is more complicated. Personally, I believe they can, but only by living/obeying the same laws that the religious live by. Namely, love. God is love, as such, I think He will bless anyone that embraces that same love/grace that He offers to all. I also believe that even the atheist, either in this life or the next will come to recognize the source of that love and accept God as such. So the difference is really subjective.

I have a question for you. What do you think motivates an atheist to do good?

CEF, non-theistic grace sort of popped up in the so-called theological turn in French phenomenology. Around the late 80′s through the early 90′s there was a lot of discussion of The Gift. This was related to phenomenology because things are given to our awareness. Yet how to think of this is complex. (In American analytic philosophy there was a similar concern albeit conceived quite differently. There the discussion popped up in places like Sellars “The Myth of the Given” in Empiricism and the Philosophy of Mind. In this analysis of how to think of the phenomenological given without falling prey to many of the errors in thinking of givenness or the gift a lot of French philosophers turned to the notion of Christian grace. One major figure was the French philosopher Marion who is an avowedly Christian philosopher. However other figures, such as Derrida, took up religious questions seriously but from a very atheistic position that made us of a lot of religious imagery. (See for instance Derrida’s The Gift of Death) Badiou did the same thing with Grace in the Pauline epistles. (See his St. Paul: The Foundation of Universalism – which I’ve not read) But it was all tied to certain philosophical problems where there were certain structural similarities with the Christian theology of Grace. It turns out that this all ended up fairly close to certain Buddhist traditions as well – especially (IMO) Zen Buddhism.

I’d hoped to have up a second post on Grace this weekend but was stuck programming instead. I’ll see what I can do to answer your questions a bit though. A good book on the subject, albeit rather technical, is Adam’s Badiou, Marion and St. Paul: Immanent Grace. I can’t speak too much to it since I’m trying to read Badiou to figure out exactly what is going on in Adam’s arguments. (And unfortunately I’ve not had time to get past chapter 1 yet) But a lot of what I’ve said comes from discussions with Adam.

The big difference between Adam and myself is really over Adam’s critique of Derrida. I tend to favor Derrida’s position. That is I see Grace (in the broad secular sense) as what is not in a current economy. It is thus an eruption into the given order by what can not be explained by that order. In a certain sense it is the rise of new order out of an underlying substrate of chaos. Adam wants to make the different move of saying Grace isn’t this eruption of what one might call transcendence (since it is outside the order). Rather Adam wishes to say Grace is precisely what is immanent. What is already there in a sense rather what enables there to be something new. Adam’s critique of Derrida is thus a critique of Derrida’s focus on novelty. Whereas to me novelty as a transcendental condition is what makes stability or immanence possible.

That ends up being a fairly technical discussion though. Where does Mormonism enter in? That’s harder to say. I think if one looks to the ancient Jewish creation myths you can see a bit. Of course Mormon theology and ancient Jewish theology have a lot in common on these points and both are in opposition to the traditional Christian doctrine of creation ex nihilo. For the ancient Jews God’s creative power is a holding back or even organizing of a pre-existing chaos. It is based upon a kind of strife. This act of creation further is never a “once and forever” creation but a creation that must be repeated again and again. This creative organizing is thus Grace broadly construed. (The Grace for a person is but one aspect of God’s creative organization but does not exhaust all that God is doing) In secularized terms then the organizing of chaos into order is Grace.

24 Michael Dorfman on May 6th, 2009 3:54 am

CEF: I have a question for you. What do you think motivates an atheist to do good?

Well, I’m an atheist, and I’d like to think I’m a good person, so I can speak about this with some confidence. First of all, let’s eliminate what’s not the motivation– fear of punishment or desire for heavenly reward. Those are pretty crappy motivators, in my opinion, and if one really believes that people need to be bribed and threatened to behave decently, one has a very poor view of humanity indeed– in fact, I’d be inclined to ignore any Creator who claimed to be responsible for such a sorry creation.

So, what motivates me to do good? In a word: compassion. There’s enough suffering out there without me adding to it, and if I can subtract from it, so much the better.

Since you expressed an interest in Buddhism, I’ll say this: I’d stack the Buddhist “Five Precepts” up against the 10 Commandments any day, if you want an example of an atheist moral code.

25 Michael Dorfman on May 6th, 2009 4:01 am

Clark:Adam’s critique of Derrida is thus a critique of Derrida’s focus on novelty. Whereas to me novelty as a transcendental condition is what makes stability or immanence possible.

But does Derrida really focus on novelty? It seems to me that he spends a great deal of time on spacing, i.e., the (impossible) conditions of possibility.

Clark: It turns out that this all ended up fairly close to certain Buddhist traditions as well – especially (IMO) Zen Buddhism.

I agree about “certain Buddhist tradtions”, but I’m not so sure I’d put Zen at the top of the list. But, as you say, this is quite technical.

If you are willing to suspend your disbelief for an hour and actively follow along, I’ve found that Genpo Roshi’s “Big Mind” seminars, (available on YouTube beginning here) can give a nice taste of Zen awareness. It’s not a substitute for meditation practice, mind you, but it can definitely be a profound experience, if you let yourself go with it.

Novelty probably isn’t the best term, although as I recall that’s what Adam focuses in on. That’s because the conditions for possibility can lead to the repetition of the same (or at least similar). That is stability is the selection by greater forces, as Derrida says when speaking more Nietzschean.

Thank you Clark. That helps a lot. It will take me awhile to work through all of it.

Michael, thank you for your answer. But I am more interested in what motivates your compassion? Where does that come from? I have no doubt that you are compassionate, your willingness to discuss this with me is an act of grace. I have nothing to offer in return. I have learned a lot form Clark, but I am sure he has never learned anything form me. I consider Clark gracious as well.

I would guess, not ever having met you or even talked to you before, that something has led you to where you are now. I would also guess that things have happened to you that you cannot explain. These things have helped shape who and what you are. I would attribute such things to God/something bigger than I am. You would probably attribute these things to mere chance/just the way things are. Both of us cannot be correct. I am willing to entertain the idea that I am wrong.

I would appreciate any suggestion of a book about Buddhism that you would recommend to one like me, not the sharpest tack in the box.

I have no good answer as to why things in the Old Testament are the way they are, but I would stand the two great commandments Christ gave in the New Testament to anything. Love God and love your neighbor.

I just read a book Called “The Hole in the Gospel” by Richard Stearns. It is all about putting the teachings of Christ into action. It is a good book, I would recommend it to anyone.

Christians have done a lot of bad things in the name of God, but they have also done some amazingly good things in the name of God as well.

Actually novelty might work for spacing as well Michael. Spacing is sort of the counterpart to differance/differal. The ‘place’ we expect is not fully present. So there is always that sense of being out of place. That “out of placeness” is what makes the immanent so novel. To look at any one ‘thing’ at a place demands that we recognize it isn’t fully there. It is tied to a context that always escapes the place of our awareness. That Other is what characterizes novelty. In effect Derrida is saying that the mundane is always already novel.

30 Michael Dorfman on May 7th, 2009 12:09 am

CEF: But I am more interested in what motivates your compassion?

Discussing motivation is difficult, as most of it is unconscious. If we are going to attribute motivations to God, we have a problem– how do we explain the motivations of people who do nasty things?

CEF: I would guess, not ever having met you or even talked to you before, that something has led you to where you are now. I would also guess that things have happened to you that you cannot explain. These things have helped shape who and what you are. I would attribute such things to God/something bigger than I am. You would probably attribute these things to mere chance/just the way things are. Both of us cannot be correct. I am willing to entertain the idea that I am wrong.

The nice thing about attributing these things to chance is that it is value-neutral– no one expects chance to be organized, or good, or make sense. If you attribute things to God, you are assuming that a) things make sense, and b) they are done for a good reason, and c) they couldn’t be this way with less suffering. If there is a God, based on the evidence I’d say he is 100% evil and 80% effective.

As far as commandments are concerned: “Love your neighbor” is a great commandment. Too bad most of Christianity is in direct opposition to it. “Love God” is, as far as I am concerned, a pretty bad commandment– personally, I don’t care if you love Vishnu or Zeus or Isaac Newton, as long as you behave like a decent human being.

Given your background, a nice book on Buddhism might be “Living Buddha, Living Christ” by Thich Nhat Hanh. He’s a Vietnamese Zen monk who was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize by Martin Luther King (one of my favorite Christians…)

CEF:Christians have done a lot of bad things in the name of God, but they have also done some amazingly good things in the name of God as well.

Yep. Similarly, Muslims have done a lot of amazingly good things and amazingly bad things in the name of Allah. Admiring the works of the Ancient Greeks doesn’t make me want to worship Zeus. though. Although, in the Greek’s defense, being polytheistic they weren’t interested in getting other people to believe in the same deities as them– that problem seems to be uniquely monotheistic.

Hello Michael,

Thank you for your help. I will get the book and read it. And you are right, some things really are complicated.

You came across as one that has a good heart, no matter how you got it, and that is good enough for me.

Leave a Reply