It is important that our self-esteem is realistic. Else, we might make bad decisions based on our misunderstanding of ourselves. And it is also important that our self-esteem is positive. Else, we might become depressed. I have found in humanism a self-esteem that is both realistic and positive.
Understood. Your image of us as humans is that we bear a divine image, something we might possibly share with other beings out there.
I do not see this as realistic. Actually, we share much of the image of a chimpanzee, being very close in structure and makeup. But an accident of history caused our species to need a phenomenal concentration on brain development and complex social relationships. That led to a species that has special characteristics that, in my opinion, are quite good. See
Why are there still apes? .
Good, but not in a divine image.
I'm not talking about genetics or bodily form. The image of God means to be created to reflect God and His love and goodness.
I more-or-less follow N.T. Wright's view that the first chapter of Genesis functions as a "temple narrative". The creation of heaven and earth is presented as the making of a temple for God to inhabit, the final act being the installation of the divine image into that temple. Human beings are to bear God in the world, and simultaneously are as priests who bring that creation before God in worship. Note that by worship I don't mean singing songs or things of that nature; by worship I really am getting at the idea that worship of God is found in inhabiting our vocation as human beings to love. I think this is a much larger topic than can be explored here, however.
...Mosquitos are good. Malaria is good. Locusts are good. Salmonella is good. Is that how it works?
Are they any less good than human beings? We call mosquitos, malaria, etc bad because of the negative impact they have on us. The Christian religion understands this as the fallen state of creation at present on account of sin and death. Is the tree not good when it falls and lands on a house? Or is it the destruction itself that is not good?
It is important that our view of ourselves and the world is realistic, as well as being positive. If humans are good, not all things we contact are also good.
You are a good person. I am sure you hope and pray for the ultimate reconciliation of all. That's not the issue here.
The Augsburg Confession, which you also support, says we are born, "with concupiscence; and that this disease, or vice of origin, is truly sin, even now condemning" us. As a consequence, it says some are "to be tormented without end".
That still leaves a very large open question on what "torment" means. I also maintain a position of agnosticism as to duration. Philip Melancthon in the Augsburg Confession does use the Latin perpetua; though I remain unconvinced that this is most valid understanding of the use of aionios in the New Testament. E.g. Matthew 25:41 which has τὸ πῦρ τὸ αἰώνιον, often translated into English as "everlasting fire" or "eternal fire". I would maintain that aionios is perhaps more literally translated "of the age" or similar, in the same way that the promise of "eternal life" speaks of the life of the Age to Come (which is received now, in part through faith, but is made full and real in the resurrection). I don't think the word alone presents us with sufficient data to determine whether this is endless or rather an undefined duration of time, or something else. If it were obvious there would never have been the kinds of diverse opinions and ideas among the ancient fathers, for whom the Greek of the New Testament was there first and native language.
You'll find that Lutherans are, broadly speaking, of two opinions concerning the Lutheran Confessions. One being the quia view (Latin for "because"), which argues that the Confessions are true because they agree with Scripture. The other is the quatenus view (Latin for "insofar as"), which argues that the Confessions are true insofar as they agree with Scripture.
I find myself somewhere in the middle of those two, I suppose. I believe the Confessions and receive the Confessions as a true witness of Christian faith; but I certainly don't view the Confessions as inerrant. Which is why yes, I uphold the Augusburg Confession, but as I said I am agnostic as it pertains to a number of things, the subject of hell perhaps being chief among those. It would be deeply problematic, in my mind, to take a position that would effectively call many great theologians and saints of the Church heretics (for example, St. Gregory of Nyssa maintained that hell should be compared to a refiner's fire that purifies, describing the fires of hell as purgatorial in nature). Likewise, St. Isaac the Syrian who I greatly admire, while never straight away saying it, does speak of hell as the flame of God's love, the love which He has impartially on all creatures--none being deprived of His love for such is impossible, God
is love.
Do those people deserve to be tormented without end? If they deserve that, it makes little sense to say that they can realistically view themselves with high self-esteem.
I think this question still presumes, or assumes, a view of things that I don't share. When I say that I deserve hell, at least in my mind I'm not thinking "I deserve to be flogged day and night without end" or something to that end. I'm saying that, at the end of the day I've done nothing that would be deserving of that life for which I hope; and that if I look upon myself honestly on the basis of what I should be and what I should do, I see myself as naked and shameful. But, and this is crucial, again my esteem comes not from this condemnation of the Law, but the love of God in the Gospel.
And Lutheran theology, without this incredibly important understanding of Law and Gospel, isn't going to make sense. The "Law and Gospel Dialectic" is central to Lutheran biblical exegesis and how we talk about just about every aspect of theology. The Law on the one hand which condemns, and the Gospel on the other which destroys that condemnation and liberates us from the guilt-ridden conscience that one bears under the Law.
I see this as being realistic. Realistically, I'm not good. That is, when I observe my own thoughts, behaviors, and take a long hard look at my innermost self what I see is a whirlwind of emotions and ideas and impulses. Do I love my neighbor as myself? Do I really? Or do I, whether by action or even inaction, contribute to the suffering of my neighbor here?
The evil I see in the world, the systemic evil I see in the world, does not arise from nothing--it arises from each and every single one of us. So that this line of evil splits right through the middle of each and every single one of us. Racist systems arise from racist people and then perpetuate themselves.
We're the ones who are sick. And our sickness affects everything around us. I am culpable and responsible. I can't blame others for my lack of love, for my lack of compassion, for my failures to be kind--to not just act kind and to speak kind, but to think kindly. The problem runs deep, deep down to the center of myself.
I don't deserve hell because I'm a bad person who should be tormented forever and ever. I deserve hell because when I take a long hard look at myself with eyes wide open, that hell is already inside of me. To quote C.S. Lewis, "It's not a matter of God sending us to hell, but rather that there is something in us that will become hell unless it is nipped in the bud."
In what way does tormenting a person without end treat that person with respect, kindness, and basic dignity?
...and not to be tormented without end?
See above.
Or as others have implied here, one can have a positive self-esteem, as long as he ignores how wretchedly bad he really is. That is ersatz self-esteem. If I am bad enough to deserve torment without end, it would be hard to be positive about who I am.
Then rather than being negative or positive about who we are, perhaps we should be honest about ourselves. Because only in that frank honesty, and together in love, can we build one another up. Rather than relying on myself to think highly of myself.
Perhaps we mean different things by self-esteem. I view self-esteem as the acknowledgement that I am a human person deserving of basic respect and kindness from my neighbor, that I am not less-than my neighbor; nor that I am greater-than my neighbor.
Then may I suggest you word it differently? Instead of saying you are a "wretch", why not say that you are a human, with all the goodness and weakness that this involves?
I don't know that this is being entirely honest with myself. But also, I don't view those two statements as inherently contradictory. Both are true: I am a wretch, and I am a human with all the goodness and weakness that involves. Furthermore, I am not just human, I am also seeking to
be human. Because that wretchedness I speak of, that's a wretchedness that gnaws and tears away against my humanity. When I sow injury against another, I not only deny their humanity, I deny my own.
As I fundamentally see being human as more than being an individual human person; it is a partaking of the common humanity found in all people. That's the humanity that the Word of God assumed and has partaken of in the Incarnation, Jesus Christ has come and shared in our humanity--drawing us to each other in Himself. Being human is more than just where I find myself right now, it's the goal and aim of the Christian life to
be human.
As Catholic theologian Fr. Herbert McCabe writes,
(The context is the Incarnation, God the Son become human)
"
God's understanding of God is that he is not a special person with a special kind of message, with a special way of living to which he wants people to conform. God's understanding of God could not appear to us as someone who wants to found a new and better religion, or recommend a special new discipline or way of life - a religious code laid upon us for all time because it is from God. God's understanding of God is that he just says, 'Yes, be, be human, but be really human, be human if it kills you - and it will.'" - Herbert McCabe, God Still Matters, pp. 104-105
But you do hold the view that some are going to eternal conscious torment, yes? (see Augsburg Confession). You just don't think this is eternal conscious torment in separation from God in some place called "hell"? How does it improve that sentence when one removes the words in italics?
See my comments earlier in this post.
OK, you deserve "hell", provided we define it as something different from eternal conscious torment. That hardly bypasses what the Augsburg confession says about eternal torment.
See above.
One statement sees us a bad, filthy wretches who do bad things because we are bad. The other sees us as humans with all the goodness of humanity who sometimes make bad decisions. Those are mutually exclusive.
Worded as such, I'd agree those are probably mutually exclusive.
Instead: We are filthy wretches who do bad things because we are desperately sick and out of that sickness is every disordered passion and desire; nevertheless we remain the good human creation of God. And God, who is infinitely and unconditionally loving, will be faithful to all which He made, including even us unworthy and wretched sinners.
-CryptoLutheran