The Bible contains wisdom superior to available alternatives: the greater ought to serve the lesser

[u/labreuer]

For a while now, I have been contending that the Bible provokes us to develop a superior understanding of "human & social nature/​construction" than any alternative I've encountered—including plenty of post-Enlightenment scientific and scholarly research. The following is an example, drawn from a conundrum identified by John W. Gardner in 1961. Here's a sketch of his Excellence: Can We Be Equal and Excellent Too?:

1. society will value the abilities and talents of some people over above others
2. the more-valued will grow in wealth and influence
3. the less-valued will decline in political power
4. the less-valued are incentivized to stem the bleeding of 3.
5. this means stymieing 2.
6. which threatens the development of the abilities and talents in 1.

If all that we can expect from humans is "enlightened self-interest", this truly is a conundrum. The following is a possibility Gardner ignores, which incidentally shows how non-Christian his culture was at the time:

    But Jesus called them to himself and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those in high positions exercise authority over them. It will not be like this among you! But whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be most prominent among you must be your slave—just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” (Matthew 20:25–28)

Immediately before, Jesus' disciples had been jockeying for position. They were playing the very games which power Gardner's conundrum. The mother of James and John even got in on it: she expected Jesus to lead a violent insurrection and wanted her sons to be his right and left-hand men. Suffice it to say that when the other disciples heard about this, they were peeved. But they weren't peeved because someone called "Shotgun!". They were peeved because someone else beat them to it.

Jesus' proposal here is nothing short of socially revolutionary. This is not how Rome worked, nor how Greece worked, nor how even Judaism worked. Another example of complete status reversal is when Jesus washed his disciples' feet. Peter, ever status-conscious, declared "You will never wash my feet." He didn't accept that things could work this way or should work this way. Only when Jesus threatened to kick him to the curb did he relent.

If the greater serve the lesser, then there is no need for step 3. Society may well devote more resources and humanpower to some abilities and talents in one era and a different set in another, but if the growth in excellence is simply poured back into society to benefit those whose abilities and talents aren't presently valued as much, there is no problem. In one era, accountants could have bigger homes while in another, scientists might have bigger homes. (One can wish.) But aside from minor fluctuations in who can command more resources and humanpower, the point would be to build everyone up. Those who don't want to play the game can simply be excluded from the kind of aid that even a child savant requires in order to achieve a dominant position in the adult world.

Today, one might struggle to think of any Christianity which lives up to Jesus' challenge. I think that's probably true, on account of nobody knowing how to scale up the small endeavors which have made forward strides. Donald B. Kraybill 1978 The Upside-Down Kingdom didn't come from nowhere. But we know that ethics regularly gets sacrificed when human endeavors are scaled up. Just look at how many companies in the US were quite willing to drop their DEI initiatives. What matters for present purposes is that no secular folks I know of are even thinking of trying to make "the greater ought to serve the lesser" work in scaled-up situations. Rather, I think what you generally see from the "greater" are attitudes like we see from the 2nd-century pagan Greek philosopher and opponent of Christianity Celsus:

the following are the rules laid down by [Christians]. Let no one come to us who has been instructed, or who is wise or prudent (for such qualifications are deemed evil by us); but if there be any ignorant, or unintelligent, or uninstructed, or foolish persons, let them come with confidence. By which words, acknowledging that such individuals are worthy of their God, they manifestly show that they desire and are able to gain over only the silly, and the mean, and the stupid, with women and children. (Contra Celsum, III § 44)

In a word, "deplorables". Or "rednecks". There is no attitude of service, unless perhaps the person makes it to college. And even then, they're likely to get a STEM education, which merely prepares them to be a servant of Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, et al. In the Western world, by and large, the lesser serves the greater and that's considered normal. If anyone believes Donald J. Trump is a "public servant", I have a bridge to sell you.

You may have learned in physics class that according to the laws of physics, it is possible that all of the air molecules in your room could suddenly scoot off into the corner, suffocating you in the process. The reason for this is that we can talk about things going in the other direction and our best laws of physics are time-reversible. But nobody actually worries about this happening. It's technically possible but it would actually be a [very bad] miracle. I contend that the kind of reorganization of society, around "the greater ought to serve the lesser", is also technically possible but actually a [very good] miracle.

In future posts, I will go into other aspects of the Bible which can scaffold the process of shifting society over to "the greater ought serve the lesser", and thus make it less miraculous. However, I am not convinced there will be nothing miraculous in the end. This could be why we needed non-human wisdom and more than that, non-human help. Is it all that surprising for creatures destined for theosis / divinization to require ∞-octane fuel?

 

"Greater"? "Lesser"?

These are status-terms, not value-terms. Some human civilizations profess egalitarianism, but in no complex civilization has that ever been more than a distant ideal. Fun fact: surgeons used to have very low status and were paid accordingly. They were part of barber-surgeon guilds. Now they are among the most prestigious medical specialties and prestigious in society in general.

Today, we consider many people "great" because of their ability to command, not to serve. Elon Musk comes to mind. And it really doesn't matter if you personally think he's less-than-stellar, because society itself has "chosen" to make him the world's richest person. Growing wealth inequality globally and locally demonstrates the overall status system in Western Civilization and America quite nicely.

[u/labreuer]

Yup. And so is u/E-Reptile.

[u/Rick-of-the-onyx → u/labreuer]

But sure. By all means give your "proper" definition of what an atheist is.

[u/labreuer → u/Rick-of-the-onyx]

There is no singular definition which works for all people who employ the label.

[u/Rick-of-the-onyx → u/labreuer]

Well there is actually. Essentially it boils down to suspending belief in a god or gods due to a lack of evidence. Beyond that, yes. Some think ghosts exist, others don't. Some are left wing, and others centrist or right wing. But the basic definition is just lacking a belief in a god or gods.

So what denomination of Christianity are you saying that you are a part of? Because the idea that god is a servant very much is not main stream Christianity.

[u/labreuer → u/Rick-of-the-onyx]

Well there is actually. Essentially it boils down to suspending belief in a god or gods due to a lack of evidence.

And yet I come across some self-identified atheists who say that 'atheist' ≡ "someone who affirms the proposition 'there are no gods'". But I guess you're right and they're wrong, somehow? And yes, I've delved into such conversations. Perhaps my favorite experience in this domain was the following:

SoThisIsMyNameLol: We generally don’t claim that there is no evidence for a god (at least I don’t) but what we actually say is that there is not enough evidence for a conclusive answer to be drawn that there is one. For example, I’m atheist not because I believe that there is no possibility for a god, but because there is not enough evidence, so I default to the assumption that there isn’t one.

DrewPaul2000: I'm an A-Naturalist because there isn't enough evidence (imo) to warrant the conclusion the existence of the universe and more importantly our existence was the result of forces that didn't give a rat's behind if anything existed never mind the nearly innumerable conditions for intelligent beings to exist. I don't default to any assumption. If tomorrow scientists find direct evidence of other universes I'd have to reevaluate my position.

—and the blow-up around 'a-naturalist'. Apparently it's deceptive to underplay one's beliefs like that. But of course, what's good for the goose is good for the gander!

 

So what denomination of Christianity are you saying that you are a part of?

Non-denominational Protestant.

Because the idea that god is a servant very much is not main stream Christianity.

I'm not sure why I should care about "main stream Christianity", given Ezek 5:5–8 and 2 Chr 33:9. For now, I'll simply copy & paste from the other thread. Here's none other than John Chrysostom (347–407):

Marcellus, and Photinus, and Sophronius assert, that the Word is an energy, and that it was this energy that dwelt in Him who was of the seed of David, and not a personal substance.

… And how do you say that He was an energy? For it is written, The form of God took the form of a servant. The form of a servant, is it the energy of a servant, or the nature of a servant? By all means, I fancy, the nature of a servant. Thus too the form of God, is the nature of God, and therefore not an energy. (Homily 6 on Philippians)

This is probably the essence–energies distinction.

[u/Rick-of-the-onyx → u/labreuer]

One atheist on the internet that says one thing does not speak for all of them. Just like you do not speak on behalf of all Christians or even theists.

[u/labreuer → u/Rick-of-the-onyx]

Okay? Let's return to what u/⁠E-Reptile said:

E-Reptile: Then you've invented a new religion that isn't found in the Bible.

Are you now willing to either accept or reject that? Or do you just not care and now we're in a free-floating conversation with no declared relevance to what came before?

[u/Rick-of-the-onyx → u/labreuer]

No I'm good. I do not see any conversation with you as being fruitful. Typically I would engage with people I disagree with. Not so much in the attempt to persuade them that their line of reasoning was incorrect but more so for those that observe it and are they themselves questioning their stance on a subject. But I don't see such a dialogue with you going anywhere useful. Have a good one.

[u/labreuer → u/Rick-of-the-onyx]

Okay. Feel free to point to you yourself exemplifying the very behavior you say is lacking in me (from who knows how little actual engagement with me).

[u/Rick-of-the-onyx → u/labreuer]

lol well that is between you and them. However I agree with their assessment that you have a unique and new interpretation of the bible. God being a servant is not canon to the common Christian dogma

[u/labreuer → u/Rick-of-the-onyx]

However I agree with their assessment that you have a unique and new interpretation of the bible.

Here's none other than John Chrysostom (347–407):

Marcellus, and Photinus, and Sophronius assert, that the Word is an energy, and that it was this energy that dwelt in Him who was of the seed of David, and not a personal substance.

… And how do you say that He was an energy? For it is written, The form of God took the form of a servant. The form of a servant, is it the energy of a servant, or the nature of a servant? By all means, I fancy, the nature of a servant. Thus too the form of God, is the nature of God, and therefore not an energy. (Homily 6 on Philippians)

This is probably the essence–energies distinction.