"Rumours of Another World" Notes: "Out of Order" & "A Word Unsaid"

I started yesterday's posting session with optimistic expectations about getting all of my "Rumours of Another World" analysis notes up before I went to bed, but, as you can see, that didn't happen, mainly because a) I started posting around midnight or so and b) I hadn't anticipated the colossally lovely idiosyncrasies of converting (and re-formatting) a bulleted document from Word to Microsoft e-mail back to Word and then to Blogspot. (Whew!) Therefore, I am (optimistically) hoping to get the job done tonight. So, without further ado, here are my notes from Chapters 6 and 7 of Rumours.

“Sin, Sin, Sin”

Schizophrenia: The Redux (a.k.a., Chapters 6 & 7 from Philip Yancey’s “Rumours of Another World”

* The 'Schizophrenia: Severing, Suffering, and Sacrament' scheme we used to talk about sex last week also applies to the metanarrative (that is, overarching) concept of sin in general, and any good, God-given desire it has corrupted in particular (like, for example, sex).

* In these two chapters, we see the return of the 'schizophrenic world,' 'schizophrenic church,' and 'sacramental' (sorry, 'designer sex' doesn't apply to the 'ideal' view this time around) views.

• The 'schizophrenic world' view (pp. 105-107, 116-121): Yancey says it is forced to acknowledge sin, even if only in terms of 'monstrous evil' such as genocide, terrorism, gruesome murders, etc. However, most other sins are determined OK, even good -- we're just fulfilling our natural desires, even when they lead to the 'seven deadly sins.' 'Healthy-minded' (pp. 122-123)? You be the judge.
  
• The 'schizophrenic church' view (pp. 107, 114-116): This one, according to Yancey, acknowledges but over-emphasizes sin and trades free-flowing desire for hypocrisy. It also makes the fatal error of excluding grace.
  
• The 'sacramental' view (pp. 100-103, 121-125): 'Morbid-minded' (pp. 122-123) as it is, it acknowledges the depth and gravity of sin but doesn't stop there, as the 'schizophrenic church' view does. Rather, it looks deep enough to understand that sins are perversions of our natural, God-given desires, and also makes room for grace.

* Do you agree with Yancey that 'We have a deep intuition about how the world should operate, and how it should not' (p. 100)? Would you agree with his assertion on p. 116 that this concept applies to all humans (not just Christians), who have consciences that can detect sin for what it is? In other words, would you agree that each of the three major worldviews/schools of thought acknowledges the presence of sin/evil in our world? How does Yancey say each one deals with sin? What real-world examples can you think of that apply to each view's conception of sin/evil?

* Severing: Read pp. 99 & 101. How does each view relate the concept of separation to sin?

* Suffering: Read pp. 120-121. How does each view relate the concept of suffering to sin?

* (Anti-) Sacrament: Read pp. 104-105, 115. How does each view see sin in relation to our God-given desires?

* Structure: Read p. 107. Non-Christian worldviews think up all sorts of “cures” for sin. Ironically, both “less structure” (“schizophrenic world” view – i.e., let people follow their inherently good hearts; just give them a good environment to blossom in & they’ll be fine) & “more structure” (“schizophrenic church” view – religious systems, laws, etc.) have been proposed – equally to no avail. Why? What are the motivating factors behind each of the two solutions? Where do they get it right & where do they get it wrong?

* Scripture: What does the Bible say in regard to some of Yancey’s assertions?

• On original sin, see Romans 7:14-20. How does this address Yancey’s assertions of widespread human consciousness of sin and the inadequacy of human structures & rules in dealing with it?
  
• On God’s ways of dealing with sin, see Galatians 3:15-25. After reading this passage, do you agree with Yancey that God used the Old Testament Law (and the saying could also apply to modern legal & religious systems) in tandem with swift, severe punishments as “overt behaviour-modification techniques” (p. 104)? Would it be more accurate to say that all of those things were used by Him as “pointers” or “schoolmasters” to help people see their need for Him? What things (circumstances, events, consequences, etc.) does He use as “pointers” in our world today?