Given how strongly I proclaim my theological points on this blog, and based on a recent discussion with a friend who I disagree with theologically in many ways, I have decided it is long past due for me to give at least a brief explication of how I feel about theological differences between Christians (particularly between myself and others). I am a very confrontational person, and thoroughly enjoy a good debate. However, I'm not so pretentious as to believe that there is no other way.
There are a few aspects of Christianity which I take as being fairly non-negotiable. Wealth and power cause problems, all people are guilty of doing bad things, killing people isn't ideal, and Jesus was a special guy. I don't feel like these statements are particularly controversial within Christianity. Some of them get controversial when you start talking definitions, but even in those arguments people will still usually agree on the general statements.
I have studied a wide array of topics, and spent a reasonable amount of time doing so. I wholeheartedly believe that I have very reasonable positions on subjects, supported by a wide array of academic work as well as scripture and prayerful insight, which at times provide much better explanations than the standard or status quo arguments currently used. However, I change my arguments as I learn new information, or realize that certain formulations really aren't sustainable. I know I'm not God. I am wholly fallible, and though I may argue vehemently at times, it is out of a desire to ascertain the truth, not because there is no imaginable way that I am wrong.
I thoroughly enjoy debate. For me, the process of debate is enjoyable both in that it allows open analysis of some idea from varying perspectives which may arrive at a conclusion better than either or prove one position invalid, in either case moving us towards truth, and because debate provides an intellectual challenge which helps me hone my critical thinking, memory and verbal reasoning skills. Debate for me is not something I take personally, even if the subject at hand is one of high personal importance. I don't get offended or angry because someone questions my worldview. Instead, it is an opportunity to refine my own understanding of my worldview and perhaps help someone else do likewise. I have found that many people don't appreciate this gesture, instead interpreting my arguments as a means for me to prove my intellectual superiority. This is in no way my intention. I would much rather know now that I am wrong about some aspect of my life so that I have an opportunity to change. There is nothing attractive to me about living according to a set of principles which do not match reality. I expect those around me to point out when I am wrong so that I may improve, and in following the golden rule, I thus do likewise for them.
"To admit I was wrong is but to say I am wiser now than I was before."
Disagree with me if you like. In fact, if you do disagree with me, please feel free to let me know, and explain why. If the debate goes no where, I am willing to agree to disagree. The world will not end because you can't convince me and I can't convince you. My prayer in all of this is that wisdom will prevail.
Sunday, July 19, 2009
The Army of God
Ok, so I lied. There are all kinds of military themes in the Bible, and I may in the future elaborate on those. However, for now I wish to focus instead on human militarism, and the problems therein. I am a pacifist, which is not to say I'm apathetic, nor passive, nor should we ignore the problems of the world. Instead, I am a man who fears sin much more than death, and believe wholeheartedly that part of the message of Jesus is that there are a great many things worth dying for, but nothing worth killing for. After all...
"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God." (Matthew 5:9) The LORD says, "It is mine to avenge; I will repay." (Deuteronomy 32:35) And as such, "Do not repay anyone evil for evil." (Romans 12:17a) I'm sure "'You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.'" (Matthew 5:43-45) In fact, "If your enemy is hungry, give him food to eat; if he is thirsty, give him water to drink." (Proverbs 25:21) No matter what, "'Put your sword back in its place...for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.'" (26:52) Instead, call out as Jesus did from the cross "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing." (Luke 23:34) "For our struggle is not against flesh and blood," (Ephesians 6:12a) and as all who live in the Kingdom of God, "They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore." (Micah 4:3b)
It is time we accept that war is the way of the World, not of God. For whatever reason the Israelites were permitted to engage in it in the past, it seems that the rules have changed. Even then, military action was taken only with the permission of God. Today, Christians must stand against violence as a means to problems both throughout the world and at home. Shooting people will never bring lasting peace, if it brings any peace at all. It is indeed proper to outraged at the injustices which occur around the world, and it is imperative that we seek ways to bring an end to those injustices. Bombs and guns, however, are not the way to do so. Evil must be resisted, but it must be resisted by good. Many may die, but many will assuredly die if we choose the sword. Rather than asking God to bless our violence, perhaps we should stand back and instead seek to act in a way God blesses. He has made it abundantly clear what he wishes from us, and no amount of prayer can make right what God has declared wrong.
"Support the troops" stands as a term which is beyond controversy. Everyone supports the troops, whether in favor to the conflict or opposed. A friend of mine who opposes war for the same reasons as stated above once only declared that Christians should not support the troops because doing so shows support for the military establishment. While I understand the argument, I still disagree. As a Christian, I do support our troops. Not because they are soldiers fighting to protect their family, their friends, and their country, but because they are human. They are humans who have been taught that it is an honor to fight for ones country and loved ones. They are humans who suffer because of sins at home and abroad. Soldiers leave sinners and return sinners, just as much as any of us when we go to work or school. We all fall short of the glory of God. If anything, the members of our military deserve our pity more than our scorn. They have faced the depths of human depravity, and they have done so out of some combination of fear and pride. Fear for their loved ones and way of life, pride for their country and the service they perform. While God may have called us to abandon fear and pride so that we may serve Him, we are likewise called to love those trapped by sin. As much as I disagree with the militarism of our world, it is not my place to condemn those who choose it. It is my place to love. Faith, hope and love: these are the weapons of the Soldiers of God. The world is a war zone, and everyone with a gun is on the same side. Stand with those who wield the sword, or stand with those whose defense is God. The choice is yours.
"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God." (Matthew 5:9) The LORD says, "It is mine to avenge; I will repay." (Deuteronomy 32:35) And as such, "Do not repay anyone evil for evil." (Romans 12:17a) I'm sure "'You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.'" (Matthew 5:43-45) In fact, "If your enemy is hungry, give him food to eat; if he is thirsty, give him water to drink." (Proverbs 25:21) No matter what, "'Put your sword back in its place...for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.'" (26:52) Instead, call out as Jesus did from the cross "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing." (Luke 23:34) "For our struggle is not against flesh and blood," (Ephesians 6:12a) and as all who live in the Kingdom of God, "They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore." (Micah 4:3b)
It is time we accept that war is the way of the World, not of God. For whatever reason the Israelites were permitted to engage in it in the past, it seems that the rules have changed. Even then, military action was taken only with the permission of God. Today, Christians must stand against violence as a means to problems both throughout the world and at home. Shooting people will never bring lasting peace, if it brings any peace at all. It is indeed proper to outraged at the injustices which occur around the world, and it is imperative that we seek ways to bring an end to those injustices. Bombs and guns, however, are not the way to do so. Evil must be resisted, but it must be resisted by good. Many may die, but many will assuredly die if we choose the sword. Rather than asking God to bless our violence, perhaps we should stand back and instead seek to act in a way God blesses. He has made it abundantly clear what he wishes from us, and no amount of prayer can make right what God has declared wrong.
"Support the troops" stands as a term which is beyond controversy. Everyone supports the troops, whether in favor to the conflict or opposed. A friend of mine who opposes war for the same reasons as stated above once only declared that Christians should not support the troops because doing so shows support for the military establishment. While I understand the argument, I still disagree. As a Christian, I do support our troops. Not because they are soldiers fighting to protect their family, their friends, and their country, but because they are human. They are humans who have been taught that it is an honor to fight for ones country and loved ones. They are humans who suffer because of sins at home and abroad. Soldiers leave sinners and return sinners, just as much as any of us when we go to work or school. We all fall short of the glory of God. If anything, the members of our military deserve our pity more than our scorn. They have faced the depths of human depravity, and they have done so out of some combination of fear and pride. Fear for their loved ones and way of life, pride for their country and the service they perform. While God may have called us to abandon fear and pride so that we may serve Him, we are likewise called to love those trapped by sin. As much as I disagree with the militarism of our world, it is not my place to condemn those who choose it. It is my place to love. Faith, hope and love: these are the weapons of the Soldiers of God. The world is a war zone, and everyone with a gun is on the same side. Stand with those who wield the sword, or stand with those whose defense is God. The choice is yours.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
The Elect
I had an interesting discussion quite a while back with a Calvinist about the Unconditional Election. This is one of the five points of Calvinism (which may be a topic for another day). Unconditional Election refers to the selection of those who will be saved at the beginning of time, based solely on God's mercy and not upon any particular action of these people. Before reading this, I would advise you to look at my earlier post, "In the Image of God," where I talk about my understanding of time, free will, and God's foreknowledge. I may repeat some of it, but I will try to keep my comments germane and mostly new.
My primary issue with the concept of Unconditional Election is that it, in effect, turns all of human history into some kind of farcical drama; a play of inordinate length and complexity for the amusement of a divine audience. At best, God becomes a tragic playwright, determining before the curtain rises who will still be standing on the stage at the end. At worst, it makes God an efficiency expert for a cosmic Human Resources office, mechanically generating a list of people to fire in order to maximize the productivity of Universe Inc.. Neither of those options sound like a loving God, willing to go to sacrificial lengths to ensure the well-being of humanity.
Personal feelings aside, while scripture does seem to hint at the possibility of this doctrine, more than a little creative theology is needed to contort those hints into Unconditional Election and Perseverance. These verses can be divided into two categories. First are verses which put salvation in the hands of God rather than something resulting from human effort (John 15:16, Romans 9:15-16, 2 Timothy 1:9). These at no point explicitly say that God selected particular individuals. They simply affirm that humans are incapable of paying the debt for our sin, and thus must rely on the grace of God. The second category contains verses indicating foreknowledge of both the qualities of individuals and God's plan for salvation (Ephesians 1:4-5, 1 Thessalonians 1:4-5). However, the fact that God understands biology well enough to know how many hairs will be on our head has nothing to do with knowing what we will do, and the fact that God knows His own plan for human salvation well in advance doesn't strike me as a surprise. God knowing and God foreknowing are not the same thing. God can be perfectly aware of every physical law, every biological process, and the content of his own mind without knowing who will accept His offer and who will reject Him.
From an intellectual perspective, the perceived need for these doctrines is rooted in issues of Greek philosophy more than scripture. As I've complained about Greek philosophy enough throughout this blog, I will leave it at this: the Greeks hated time because it was an undeniable form of change, and change equated to imperfection. Parmenides and his pupil, Zeno, were famous for denying both time and motion. Both, they claimed, were simply illusions. The Cosmos was a single, perfect, eternal, unchanging object, and was therein perfect. While most other philosophers moderated this idea, virtually all ancient thinkers agreed at least in principle. The only real opposition came from a little heard of gentleman name Heraclitus who indicated that the Universe works through paradox (like someone being both God and Man?). For God to be perfect, He must not be in any way affected by time, even with respect to knowledge. Thus, He knew prior to the creation of time what the entire content of that time would be. The inherent problem follows: The Fall was not only foreseen, but planned by God, and the selection of only a few to find the narrow gate was done up front, leaving the rest to condemnation. Sounds like a fun God huh?
A loving God, who wishes for none to be condemned (2 Peter 3:9) does not seem like the kind of God who would create individuals who He knew were never going to find salvation. For this to work, one of the following must be true: God is indifferent rather than loving, or God is impotent rather than powerful, or God is a liar and we cannot trust anything revealed to us. Somehow, none of these things sound like the God revealed to the Jewish people and in the person of Jesus. While one can perhaps get away with saying that God cannot be held responsible for our sin just because he knows it will happen, God can be held responsible for the condemnation of a man He created with the knowledge that said person would be condemned. Unless, of course, God was powerless within His creation. If God cannot interfere with the affairs of our world at all, then He cannot be held responsible because He may as well not exist.
My primary issue with the concept of Unconditional Election is that it, in effect, turns all of human history into some kind of farcical drama; a play of inordinate length and complexity for the amusement of a divine audience. At best, God becomes a tragic playwright, determining before the curtain rises who will still be standing on the stage at the end. At worst, it makes God an efficiency expert for a cosmic Human Resources office, mechanically generating a list of people to fire in order to maximize the productivity of Universe Inc.. Neither of those options sound like a loving God, willing to go to sacrificial lengths to ensure the well-being of humanity.
Personal feelings aside, while scripture does seem to hint at the possibility of this doctrine, more than a little creative theology is needed to contort those hints into Unconditional Election and Perseverance. These verses can be divided into two categories. First are verses which put salvation in the hands of God rather than something resulting from human effort (John 15:16, Romans 9:15-16, 2 Timothy 1:9). These at no point explicitly say that God selected particular individuals. They simply affirm that humans are incapable of paying the debt for our sin, and thus must rely on the grace of God. The second category contains verses indicating foreknowledge of both the qualities of individuals and God's plan for salvation (Ephesians 1:4-5, 1 Thessalonians 1:4-5). However, the fact that God understands biology well enough to know how many hairs will be on our head has nothing to do with knowing what we will do, and the fact that God knows His own plan for human salvation well in advance doesn't strike me as a surprise. God knowing and God foreknowing are not the same thing. God can be perfectly aware of every physical law, every biological process, and the content of his own mind without knowing who will accept His offer and who will reject Him.
From an intellectual perspective, the perceived need for these doctrines is rooted in issues of Greek philosophy more than scripture. As I've complained about Greek philosophy enough throughout this blog, I will leave it at this: the Greeks hated time because it was an undeniable form of change, and change equated to imperfection. Parmenides and his pupil, Zeno, were famous for denying both time and motion. Both, they claimed, were simply illusions. The Cosmos was a single, perfect, eternal, unchanging object, and was therein perfect. While most other philosophers moderated this idea, virtually all ancient thinkers agreed at least in principle. The only real opposition came from a little heard of gentleman name Heraclitus who indicated that the Universe works through paradox (like someone being both God and Man?). For God to be perfect, He must not be in any way affected by time, even with respect to knowledge. Thus, He knew prior to the creation of time what the entire content of that time would be. The inherent problem follows: The Fall was not only foreseen, but planned by God, and the selection of only a few to find the narrow gate was done up front, leaving the rest to condemnation. Sounds like a fun God huh?
A loving God, who wishes for none to be condemned (2 Peter 3:9) does not seem like the kind of God who would create individuals who He knew were never going to find salvation. For this to work, one of the following must be true: God is indifferent rather than loving, or God is impotent rather than powerful, or God is a liar and we cannot trust anything revealed to us. Somehow, none of these things sound like the God revealed to the Jewish people and in the person of Jesus. While one can perhaps get away with saying that God cannot be held responsible for our sin just because he knows it will happen, God can be held responsible for the condemnation of a man He created with the knowledge that said person would be condemned. Unless, of course, God was powerless within His creation. If God cannot interfere with the affairs of our world at all, then He cannot be held responsible because He may as well not exist.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Forgiveness
I was in church the other Sunday when a song began that I had never encountered before. It was a little slow and soft for my personal preference (Someone called me a Quaker once because I can't stay still when I'm worshiping), and most of the lyrics were less than inspiring to me. Suddenly, I sat down, grabbed a pen and started scribbling on the edge of the program. A line from the song had struck me deeply, and I needed to make sure I didn't forget it.
"With You there is forgiveness
and therefore you are feared"
Church history is rife with threats of punishment in Hell, but very few preachers have ever thought to threaten congregations with grace. Tell someone who has done something wrong that they will be punished, and they are not surprised. Simple human logic would indicate that. Every human idea of justice recorded is based on the idea that when someone acts inappropriately, they will be punished for it. What is much harder for people to grasp is that they are actually forgiven. Forgiveness disrupts the normal functioning of our everyday lives. It nullifies the equal and opposite reaction of any action, and we have no idea what to do with that.
Overwhelmingly, humanity is utterly obsessed with order. We want everything to make concrete, logical sense expressed in a format used since ancient Greece. Both the law and the Law fit very nicely into this worldview. When we do something wrong, we suffer the consequences. When we throw a ball, it moves in the direction we released it. When you pull the trigger, a small explosion projects a bullet down the barrel. Sometimes the gun jams, or the shell is bad, or any number of other things go wrong, but what happens when everything is right, and it doesn't fire. You put in a new shell, you replace every component, you buy a new gun and it won't fire. What then? Nothing is out of the ordinary. There is no logical reason for it not to work, and yet it doesn't. I know I would be more than a little confused, perhaps even the term scared would apply.
Does this differ from forgiveness? Is forgiveness more sensible? If we stop thinking forgiveness as some casual arrangement of words which mean you're not going to get a punishment, and start realizing that it is a fundamental violation of everything we have come to expect from reality. That is a much more frightening thing than any version of Hell I could imagine, and yet a sweeter sound I have not heard.
"With You there is forgiveness
and therefore you are feared"
Church history is rife with threats of punishment in Hell, but very few preachers have ever thought to threaten congregations with grace. Tell someone who has done something wrong that they will be punished, and they are not surprised. Simple human logic would indicate that. Every human idea of justice recorded is based on the idea that when someone acts inappropriately, they will be punished for it. What is much harder for people to grasp is that they are actually forgiven. Forgiveness disrupts the normal functioning of our everyday lives. It nullifies the equal and opposite reaction of any action, and we have no idea what to do with that.
Overwhelmingly, humanity is utterly obsessed with order. We want everything to make concrete, logical sense expressed in a format used since ancient Greece. Both the law and the Law fit very nicely into this worldview. When we do something wrong, we suffer the consequences. When we throw a ball, it moves in the direction we released it. When you pull the trigger, a small explosion projects a bullet down the barrel. Sometimes the gun jams, or the shell is bad, or any number of other things go wrong, but what happens when everything is right, and it doesn't fire. You put in a new shell, you replace every component, you buy a new gun and it won't fire. What then? Nothing is out of the ordinary. There is no logical reason for it not to work, and yet it doesn't. I know I would be more than a little confused, perhaps even the term scared would apply.
Does this differ from forgiveness? Is forgiveness more sensible? If we stop thinking forgiveness as some casual arrangement of words which mean you're not going to get a punishment, and start realizing that it is a fundamental violation of everything we have come to expect from reality. That is a much more frightening thing than any version of Hell I could imagine, and yet a sweeter sound I have not heard.
The One... The Only...
Sometimes I'm amused by the questions people come to me with. The other day someone very close to me sent me an email, and the first line of it read "I need you to help me learn to argue." Apparently, a discussion had arisen regarding "why is one religion right out of all the rest?" It's a legitimate question, and while I may not be good at teaching people to argue, I am more than willing to elaborate on my own arguments. Before I begin, I would like to redirect readers to my earlier blog titled "The Theory of Relativity." That blog responds to a number of points, and rather than reiterate I will simply continue where I left off there.
In response to the question at hand, on a purely rational level, there is no way to argue that any particular religion has it right. However, you simultaneously cannot rationally prove that no religious tradition is absolutely correct. Given this dilemma, I feel it meaningful to take the argument down a notch and approach it with a less technical but wholly reasonable human analysis.
Option 1: Religion is Wrong. If there is nothing beyond the scientifically measurable natural world, and strict atheists are correct, then we are in a very scary place. I'm going to leave this topic for another time, but for now I think we can say that if this is true, it will void the question above. For the sake of argument, lets assume that something Divine actually exists.
Option 2: All Religions are Wrong. This is akin to the pluralistic argument that there is no one true religion and so all of them are essentially wrong. Under this model, what is true is that there is something greater than the world, but we have absolutely no idea what it is. As I stated before, formal logic is of no real use in affirming or denying this statement. What I feel are two ways of arguing this are on the grounds of it's worth on human terms, and the implications it holds for society. I personally do not find it a satisfying answer to say that there is something out there, I just can't know anything about it. Less satisfying is the idea that no matter what I think there is no way to share it, or for it to mean anything outside of what I alone think. Religion becomes somewhere between meaningless and divisive, even more than it is now. The greater implications on society are likewise problematic. Religion no longer becomes an institution which teaches self discipline or expects generosity. If we as a culture conclude that any belief is acceptable, then belief is no longer meaningful. In all going our separate ways, we will all end up at the same point: the lowest common denominator, the path of least resistance. Many argue that religion expresses a human need, and yet to me it seems that religion is the most alien possible influence. It tells us to give our last penny to help those in need, to stand with the oppressed against all the powers of government, to rejoice in suffering and to embrace death when it comes.
Option 3: One Religion is (at least essentially) correct. This is perhaps one of the more controversial statements in our day. In making this argument, I feel it is important to indicate what I don't mean. Other religions are not meaningless, nor their adherents deficient or ignorant in any way. However, every religion makes a series of truth claims. If there is an overall common reality which we each participate in, than a true religion would both correlate to that reality, and teach us more about that reality. Given the very distinct truth claims each religion makes, they cannot all be true. Thus, while each may contain certain elements of truth, one of them stands apart from the rest. This provides the most meaningful directions for human life, both individual and communal, aids us in understanding the universe around us, and answers to our deepest needs and desires. As to which religious tradition can claim this spot: that is an argument for another day.
In response to the question at hand, on a purely rational level, there is no way to argue that any particular religion has it right. However, you simultaneously cannot rationally prove that no religious tradition is absolutely correct. Given this dilemma, I feel it meaningful to take the argument down a notch and approach it with a less technical but wholly reasonable human analysis.
Option 1: Religion is Wrong. If there is nothing beyond the scientifically measurable natural world, and strict atheists are correct, then we are in a very scary place. I'm going to leave this topic for another time, but for now I think we can say that if this is true, it will void the question above. For the sake of argument, lets assume that something Divine actually exists.
Option 2: All Religions are Wrong. This is akin to the pluralistic argument that there is no one true religion and so all of them are essentially wrong. Under this model, what is true is that there is something greater than the world, but we have absolutely no idea what it is. As I stated before, formal logic is of no real use in affirming or denying this statement. What I feel are two ways of arguing this are on the grounds of it's worth on human terms, and the implications it holds for society. I personally do not find it a satisfying answer to say that there is something out there, I just can't know anything about it. Less satisfying is the idea that no matter what I think there is no way to share it, or for it to mean anything outside of what I alone think. Religion becomes somewhere between meaningless and divisive, even more than it is now. The greater implications on society are likewise problematic. Religion no longer becomes an institution which teaches self discipline or expects generosity. If we as a culture conclude that any belief is acceptable, then belief is no longer meaningful. In all going our separate ways, we will all end up at the same point: the lowest common denominator, the path of least resistance. Many argue that religion expresses a human need, and yet to me it seems that religion is the most alien possible influence. It tells us to give our last penny to help those in need, to stand with the oppressed against all the powers of government, to rejoice in suffering and to embrace death when it comes.
Option 3: One Religion is (at least essentially) correct. This is perhaps one of the more controversial statements in our day. In making this argument, I feel it is important to indicate what I don't mean. Other religions are not meaningless, nor their adherents deficient or ignorant in any way. However, every religion makes a series of truth claims. If there is an overall common reality which we each participate in, than a true religion would both correlate to that reality, and teach us more about that reality. Given the very distinct truth claims each religion makes, they cannot all be true. Thus, while each may contain certain elements of truth, one of them stands apart from the rest. This provides the most meaningful directions for human life, both individual and communal, aids us in understanding the universe around us, and answers to our deepest needs and desires. As to which religious tradition can claim this spot: that is an argument for another day.
Trapped by Freedom
Not long ago, a friend of mine casually made reference to being "condemned to be free." Curiously, I asked for a more detailed explanation. Making reference to several complex situations which had arisen, she stated something along the lines that she wished "someone would just tell me what to do." It dawned on me at that point just how common of an issue this is. Governments around the world are able to sustain themselves, and often take great authority, purely on the basis that the average person would rather defer to the authority of experts than to make decisions themselves. It is much easier to float down the Mississippi from St. Paul to the Gulf of Mexico than to navigate the oceans and find the way from Europe to India. Freedom, while a word used a lot these days, is a much more complicated subject than we often give it credit for.
History has produced two very different ideas of freedom. The first I will refer to as Freedom From (FF). This type of freedom grants the person the ability to avoid the negative aspects of life (sin, for example). It is a freedom wherein our actions are limited to only those which are good for us, and thus allow us to escape injustice, meaninglessness and suffering. The second type of of freedom is Freedom To (FT). FT allows us to make any decision we wish, no matter what the consequences may be.
Each type of freedom provides benefits and poses problems. Freedom from takes away the things we truly wish to avoid, ensuring that any other option which remains is basically acceptable. People who suffer from chronic or terminal illnesses, are trapped in slavery or prison, or who have some other condition which makes life less than worthwhile at times generally seem to look for FF. A few restrictions are a small trade off for the ability to eschew the horrible conditions they must presently endure. Freedom to is a much better approximation of the American idea of freedom. As thinking people, we can make decisions which best benefit ourselves and others and we must accept the consequences of those choices. How does the government, or anyone else for that matter, know what's best for me? Power has been abused too many times by those in power, and FT is the best way to avoid it.
In the end, these types of freedom are mutually exclusive. FF requires some authority to constrain our actions and ensure we avoid things which will harm us. FT requires that no authority has any real claim over me and thus I can do as I see fit. We as humans are stuck with quite a dilemma. On the one hand, we are endowed with Freedom To do whatever we choose. As a single individual, there is really nothing internal to forcibly restrain me from taking even the most heinous course of action. Yet, we are similarly given a sense of right and wrong, as well as a universe which provides plentiful reasons to not make certain choices.
The Freedom promised by Christianity is an awkward balance between these to. On the one hand, Christians are Free To act against "the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms." (Eph. 6:12) As such, we need not fear any authorities which may constrain us. However, we are simultaneously "slaves to righteousness." (Romans 6:18) This grants us Freedom From hopelessness, fear, and all other conjugates of sin. What Freedom in the Christian sense really seems to be is Freedom To act in the world on the basis of Freedom From sin which we gain through allegiance to God. Christianity demands both. Freedom From without FT leaves a coward who is of no use to the Kingdom, and Freedom To without FF leaves an unrepentent sinner who has no interest in furthering the Kingdom. Our freedom must be complete, or we remain slaves.
History has produced two very different ideas of freedom. The first I will refer to as Freedom From (FF). This type of freedom grants the person the ability to avoid the negative aspects of life (sin, for example). It is a freedom wherein our actions are limited to only those which are good for us, and thus allow us to escape injustice, meaninglessness and suffering. The second type of of freedom is Freedom To (FT). FT allows us to make any decision we wish, no matter what the consequences may be.
Each type of freedom provides benefits and poses problems. Freedom from takes away the things we truly wish to avoid, ensuring that any other option which remains is basically acceptable. People who suffer from chronic or terminal illnesses, are trapped in slavery or prison, or who have some other condition which makes life less than worthwhile at times generally seem to look for FF. A few restrictions are a small trade off for the ability to eschew the horrible conditions they must presently endure. Freedom to is a much better approximation of the American idea of freedom. As thinking people, we can make decisions which best benefit ourselves and others and we must accept the consequences of those choices. How does the government, or anyone else for that matter, know what's best for me? Power has been abused too many times by those in power, and FT is the best way to avoid it.
In the end, these types of freedom are mutually exclusive. FF requires some authority to constrain our actions and ensure we avoid things which will harm us. FT requires that no authority has any real claim over me and thus I can do as I see fit. We as humans are stuck with quite a dilemma. On the one hand, we are endowed with Freedom To do whatever we choose. As a single individual, there is really nothing internal to forcibly restrain me from taking even the most heinous course of action. Yet, we are similarly given a sense of right and wrong, as well as a universe which provides plentiful reasons to not make certain choices.
The Freedom promised by Christianity is an awkward balance between these to. On the one hand, Christians are Free To act against "the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms." (Eph. 6:12) As such, we need not fear any authorities which may constrain us. However, we are simultaneously "slaves to righteousness." (Romans 6:18) This grants us Freedom From hopelessness, fear, and all other conjugates of sin. What Freedom in the Christian sense really seems to be is Freedom To act in the world on the basis of Freedom From sin which we gain through allegiance to God. Christianity demands both. Freedom From without FT leaves a coward who is of no use to the Kingdom, and Freedom To without FF leaves an unrepentent sinner who has no interest in furthering the Kingdom. Our freedom must be complete, or we remain slaves.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Cowards
I was talking to a friend of mine the other day who was Jewish, and out of the blue he stated that "Christians are cowards." I asked if he could elaborate, and he talked about how our faith is motivated out of fear. If we don't do what we're told, we go to Hell, and so we obey out of fear. While I had heard essentially the same argument before in theological tracts, I had never actually heard it stated out loud before, and certainly never so candidly. Unfortunately, we both had commitments which precluded the possibility of an actual conversation on the topic, and so I was left without a chance to defend my position.
The church has been far too focused on the afterlife for far too long. In all honesty, when I go to outreach events or retreats, they seem to be painfully focused on what happens next rather than what happens now. Worse than that, there is a blatant overtone of fear. "All of these terrible things will go away if only you would believe." While I can't deny that through faith comes freedom from a great many things, my friend does seem to have a point. All too often we make God into a miracle drug vending machine so that we can escape our fears as well as our need to act. The gift of Heaven seems to have been turned into a blindfold, barring us from seeing the horrors of this world and removing our responsibilities here and now.
I would like to propose a different way of looking at these same things which have been used to turn Christians into cowards. First, the promise of Heaven is not something which frees us from the responsibilities of Earth. Rather, Heaven is a promise that frees us from being concerned with what happens to us in this life. It is the assurance that the injustice we face in this world is not the way of ultimate reality. Instead, so long as we do what is right, whatever price we pay in this world is irrelevant. Heaven should inspire us, embolden us, and grant us the peace to carry on our battle against the dark forces in this world.
Second, I feel it is wholly appropriate for us to wish to avoid suffering ourselves. The goal, fundamentally, is to make it so that none suffer. In the meantime, however, it makes perfect sense for us to cast off all unnecessary suffering. The suffering which faith purges from us does not build character or surmount challenges. We are letting go of a crippling force in our lives so that we are free to suffer in more productive ways.
Christianity has been undermined by humanity. We are a fearful species, and in Christianity we find the ability to mitigate that fear. It is entirely honest to say that, without a change of heart, without spiritual rebirth, than Christianity is little more than a safety blanket. Christianity is predisposed to seek out those in fear, but the goal is to purify the person, purge the fear, and bring forward the courage of those who belong to the Lord.
The church has been far too focused on the afterlife for far too long. In all honesty, when I go to outreach events or retreats, they seem to be painfully focused on what happens next rather than what happens now. Worse than that, there is a blatant overtone of fear. "All of these terrible things will go away if only you would believe." While I can't deny that through faith comes freedom from a great many things, my friend does seem to have a point. All too often we make God into a miracle drug vending machine so that we can escape our fears as well as our need to act. The gift of Heaven seems to have been turned into a blindfold, barring us from seeing the horrors of this world and removing our responsibilities here and now.
I would like to propose a different way of looking at these same things which have been used to turn Christians into cowards. First, the promise of Heaven is not something which frees us from the responsibilities of Earth. Rather, Heaven is a promise that frees us from being concerned with what happens to us in this life. It is the assurance that the injustice we face in this world is not the way of ultimate reality. Instead, so long as we do what is right, whatever price we pay in this world is irrelevant. Heaven should inspire us, embolden us, and grant us the peace to carry on our battle against the dark forces in this world.
Second, I feel it is wholly appropriate for us to wish to avoid suffering ourselves. The goal, fundamentally, is to make it so that none suffer. In the meantime, however, it makes perfect sense for us to cast off all unnecessary suffering. The suffering which faith purges from us does not build character or surmount challenges. We are letting go of a crippling force in our lives so that we are free to suffer in more productive ways.
Christianity has been undermined by humanity. We are a fearful species, and in Christianity we find the ability to mitigate that fear. It is entirely honest to say that, without a change of heart, without spiritual rebirth, than Christianity is little more than a safety blanket. Christianity is predisposed to seek out those in fear, but the goal is to purify the person, purge the fear, and bring forward the courage of those who belong to the Lord.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)