Here's a perspective on materialism I once heard.
Material objects are dead. This means people who demonstrate love and devotion to material objects are loving dead things!
Now that is sick.
Sunday, July 29, 2007
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Worldview Fragment: just be yourself
Worldview fragment: one or more related ideas/viewpoints that can (and often do) serve as a component or flavor in a complete worldview held by some specific individual. The "fragment" term is not intended to be a subtle insult, but to accurately reflect the reality that the fragment is 1) not necessarily an actual, comprehensive worldview, and 2) could likely coexist with a variety of other fragments within some individual's worldview. A puzzle piece isn't worthless because it's a puzzle piece.
The "just be yourself" worldview fragment is defined as the belief that "each unique individual can have no greater ambition than to be and do what comes most naturally to him or her". Like other fragments, it's correct about some things but is not an example of unqualified truth.
Each individual is precious and rare, is worthy of a chance, and has a distinct set of talents. Christianity contradicts none of those assertions. Jesus mixed with all layers of society, particularly the "worthless scum". The complete non-exclusivity of the Gospel (subject to academic arguments about "predestined elect", but leave that aside for the moment) is implicit in the idea of the Great Commission, confirmed by events/councils in Acts, and preceded by Jesus' merciful interactions with Gentiles. The wide range of spiritual fruits and virtues, along with the Bible passages about the importance of unity among the diversity of the Body of Christ (the Church), illustrate the value of what only each individual can bring to the whole.
On the other hand, Christianity without earnest repentance and sincere shame for sin is not Christianity. Loving oneself, and everything about oneself, is a questionable ideal which is actually loathed in practice. Who hasn't wished for vain, arrogant snobs to receive their comeuppance? How often is someone blinded to his or her own weaknesses by blind self-love? The greatest tragedy is when someone closely identifies with his or her sin, thereby loving it like a body part or "pet".
Of course, he or she is somewhat right in that belief, since Christianity teaches that sin is natural for people. Someone who sins "naturally" still sins. A "natural" sin may be committed with relatively purer intentions than a "premeditated and consciously-chosen" sin, but the act remains the sick product of a sick being. Moreover, the more "natural" sins someone commits, the greater the evidence someone is naturally twisted. In short, to "just be yourself" when faced with a decision may not be an innocent proposition (although it may be).
Not "just being yourself" when faced with a decision could seem ridiculous to those who believe in a companion worldview fragment, "people can't change". And once again, even such a minor fragment is partially helpful and partially misleading. It's more accurate to claim "people can change, but change is hard". Many fail to change simply because they don't try enough. Then they succeed for a while, but don't sustain the change because they fail to be vigilant against the forces (within and without) that originally kept the old self/behavior so consistent. Drastic, lasting change is an easy dream but a hard endeavor. The Good News, for the Christian who really is trying, is the forgiveness offered to the confessor--forgiveness not granted in order for the sinner to sin again but granted in order for the contrite to begin anew (again).
Yet another objection arises. If Christians are trying so hard to change themselves into a group that acts uniformly, thinks uniformly, feels uniformly, then won't the result be a boring, homogenized mass of lukewarm mush? It's an honest question with several answers. For one thing, the parts of themselves that people leave behind aren't any good. Any good qualities of those parts stick around, in greater purity, due to not being weighed-down or held-back by dross. As all the members learn how to live harmoniously, they're enabled to form a stronger, better-functioning society, a society in which everyone can "be themselves" without worry because it is safe and caring. Perhaps the best response to the charge of boring uniformity is the irresistible uniqueness etched into a soul. One person can't be hammered and shaped into another, or at least not by breaking one of them. All are imperfect; when made perfect, perfection will shine in a specialized, finite way through any one of them.
The "just be yourself" worldview fragment is defined as the belief that "each unique individual can have no greater ambition than to be and do what comes most naturally to him or her". Like other fragments, it's correct about some things but is not an example of unqualified truth.
Each individual is precious and rare, is worthy of a chance, and has a distinct set of talents. Christianity contradicts none of those assertions. Jesus mixed with all layers of society, particularly the "worthless scum". The complete non-exclusivity of the Gospel (subject to academic arguments about "predestined elect", but leave that aside for the moment) is implicit in the idea of the Great Commission, confirmed by events/councils in Acts, and preceded by Jesus' merciful interactions with Gentiles. The wide range of spiritual fruits and virtues, along with the Bible passages about the importance of unity among the diversity of the Body of Christ (the Church), illustrate the value of what only each individual can bring to the whole.
On the other hand, Christianity without earnest repentance and sincere shame for sin is not Christianity. Loving oneself, and everything about oneself, is a questionable ideal which is actually loathed in practice. Who hasn't wished for vain, arrogant snobs to receive their comeuppance? How often is someone blinded to his or her own weaknesses by blind self-love? The greatest tragedy is when someone closely identifies with his or her sin, thereby loving it like a body part or "pet".
Of course, he or she is somewhat right in that belief, since Christianity teaches that sin is natural for people. Someone who sins "naturally" still sins. A "natural" sin may be committed with relatively purer intentions than a "premeditated and consciously-chosen" sin, but the act remains the sick product of a sick being. Moreover, the more "natural" sins someone commits, the greater the evidence someone is naturally twisted. In short, to "just be yourself" when faced with a decision may not be an innocent proposition (although it may be).
Not "just being yourself" when faced with a decision could seem ridiculous to those who believe in a companion worldview fragment, "people can't change". And once again, even such a minor fragment is partially helpful and partially misleading. It's more accurate to claim "people can change, but change is hard". Many fail to change simply because they don't try enough. Then they succeed for a while, but don't sustain the change because they fail to be vigilant against the forces (within and without) that originally kept the old self/behavior so consistent. Drastic, lasting change is an easy dream but a hard endeavor. The Good News, for the Christian who really is trying, is the forgiveness offered to the confessor--forgiveness not granted in order for the sinner to sin again but granted in order for the contrite to begin anew (again).
Yet another objection arises. If Christians are trying so hard to change themselves into a group that acts uniformly, thinks uniformly, feels uniformly, then won't the result be a boring, homogenized mass of lukewarm mush? It's an honest question with several answers. For one thing, the parts of themselves that people leave behind aren't any good. Any good qualities of those parts stick around, in greater purity, due to not being weighed-down or held-back by dross. As all the members learn how to live harmoniously, they're enabled to form a stronger, better-functioning society, a society in which everyone can "be themselves" without worry because it is safe and caring. Perhaps the best response to the charge of boring uniformity is the irresistible uniqueness etched into a soul. One person can't be hammered and shaped into another, or at least not by breaking one of them. All are imperfect; when made perfect, perfection will shine in a specialized, finite way through any one of them.
Sunday, July 22, 2007
Worldview Fragment: life without rules
Worldview fragment: one or more related ideas/viewpoints that can (and often do) serve as a component or flavor in a complete worldview held by some specific individual. The "fragment" term is not intended to be a subtle insult, but to accurately reflect the reality that the fragment is 1) not necessarily an actual, comprehensive worldview, and 2) could likely coexist with a variety of other fragments within some individual's worldview. A puzzle piece isn't worthless because it's a puzzle piece.
The "life without rules" worldview fragment can be summarized, if not concisely, as follows: "Living according to a set of rules or customs only produces an elaborate fantasy existence in which real humanity is all but absent." Some punchier statements in the same vein are: "rules are meant to be broken", "show me a rule and I'll show you a hypocrite", "have fun by ignoring the rules for once", "rules are for tools or dupes", "might makes right", "rules are dead so following them makes one dead".
Here are first some positive aspects to this worldview fragment:
The "life without rules" worldview fragment can be summarized, if not concisely, as follows: "Living according to a set of rules or customs only produces an elaborate fantasy existence in which real humanity is all but absent." Some punchier statements in the same vein are: "rules are meant to be broken", "show me a rule and I'll show you a hypocrite", "have fun by ignoring the rules for once", "rules are for tools or dupes", "might makes right", "rules are dead so following them makes one dead".
Here are first some positive aspects to this worldview fragment:
- Life is complicated. Rules will necessarily be insufficient to cover all situations. Therefore, it's beneficial to realize that rules are not enough, but principles nevertheless enable one to confront new decisions. This is unavoidably true within Christianity. The Bible is old. It was originally written to people who lived much differently than those in the present. Christians who attempt to live out every exact word of the Bible, while having good intentions, are in my opinion taking on the unneeded burden of preserving a nonexistent past (a past with its own set of downsides). Rules are limited, so rules aren't everything.
- A central Christian doctrine is the human inability to be holy apart from God. Rules come after salvation. Once again, mere rules aren't sufficient. In fact, in Jesus' teaching He replaced the rules regulating actions with still-harder rules regulating attitudes and thoughts! By this He acknowledged the insufficiency of (those) rules.
- Speaking frankly, some rules truly are pointless and ridiculous. Judging objectively whether a rule has a good reason, as well as when an exception is called for, is a mark of maturity. Notice that saying "Rule 4c is not applicable right now because of _____" is still far different from saying "Rule 4c is never applicable because rules are never applicable".
- To be generally dismissive toward rules is to misunderstand the general purpose of rules, which is enhancing life. When someone knows that a particular action is dangerous or at the very least has undesirable consequences, the ethical response is to create a rule forbidding it. On the other hand, if a particular action leads to a greater good, the ethical response is to create a rule mandating it. Serving customers in the order of arrival is a good rule to promote timely, fair service all around. An alternative, such as serving whichever customer successfully tackles the others to the floor, would not be as good.
- Rules may feel like the enemy of passion or desire, because rules can stifle. The error is in not acknowledging the value of this stifling effect in producing personal freedom. Freedom is choosing what will be, so someone who always listens to desire isn't as free as he or she may claim. Merely consenting to desire at every turn is a subtle bondage in which desire is one's master. Christians (and other myriad belief systems) have recommended the discipline of fasting as a great aid in this context. Although I don't think fasting regularly is necessary, I trust those who report that fasting is invaluable from time to time.
- Moderation's "dirty little secret" is how it can increase enjoyment of desire. Indulgence without moderation sooner or later is self-defeating. Addicts of any stripe know this intimately. As movie critics point out, there is nothing as tedious as nonstop action. A little modesty goes a long way. Binges can dull experience and also fatigue the person who's binging. To take a common example, consider fire. Fire is a powerful tool for light and warmth. Too much (uncontrolled) fire is a tool for destruction.
- The saddest element of this worldview fragment is the tendency for its disregard for rules to ripple into a disrespect for the mental faculties connected with rules. That is, someone who subscribes to the "rules are a prison" belief is more likely to elevate the importance of his or her "gut" over rational judgment. Does anyone doubt what disasters could result? For some decisions, the difference may not matter much. Yet the compulsive rule-breaker, whose insistence on "living free by shooting from the hip" leads him or her to throw caution away, sooner or later may discover the harshness of some of reality's rules. Risks are part of life, but stupid risks should not be. Some personalities naturally err on the side of overconfidence, while some naturally err on the side of fearfulness. Neither error is worse than the other, although people with a dramatic flair will insist that taking stupid risks is better than taking no risks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)