Tuesday, June 30, 2009

honest, courteous debate is not an inquisition

A Christian who questions widespread Christian beliefs or openly probes the foundations of Christian doctrine shouldn't expect his or her own statements to go unquestioned. Someone who takes a stand for a viewpoint that is incompatible with the rock on which others have built their entire lives shouldn't expect them to be immediately convinced. Nor should they expect everyone in the "conversation" (that word has undeniably better style and PR-value than "debate" or "argument", doesn't it?) to claim that contradictory statements can both be correct and therefore nobody is ever "wrong". In fact, it's even true that when people are discussing issues whose resolution determines what the very definition of "heresy" is, one or more of them just is a "heretic". (Of course, it's still terribly insensitive and dismissive and nonconstructive to apply the label to a fellow Christian who happens to think differently.)

It's simply unrealistic to talk or blog about extremely important ideas in a casual or, worse, intellectually sloppy manner. I have no problem with continual review of the traditional, time-honored stances of Christian thought. My contention is that when it happens, passionate dialogue inevitably "comes with the territory", and also that it's unfair to only allow one "side" (we're all on the same one, ultimately...) to apply critical thinking to the other, as if one side's statements are all sincere seeking after the truth and the other's are all reflexive narrow-minded defensiveness.

Thursday, June 25, 2009

a raspberry smoothie defeats existentialism every time

Earlier this week, I was standing in a long, slow line at a grocery store in the evening, and my mind wandered for a while since I had no other options. I began to question the way I spend my life and what I want my future to be and possible changes to align the two. I pondered what characteristics and actions had most likely produced my current circumstances and habits. Eventually I made it out to my car with the groceries, still feeling pensive and swallowed by ennui.

On the way back I bought a raspberry smoothie at a drive-thru (no, I don't do this regularly). After about four drawn-out sips, all my prior misgivings evaporated. The questions were still there, but I was now floating untouched above them: consumption and aimless enjoyment victorious.

Now just imagine if I'd had the latest cell phone model with me when I was standing in the checkout line. I could've played some game or gotten caught up on my twitters, and completely avoided a slough of teleological sinkholes.

Sunday, June 21, 2009

God is not reliable

Before beginning, I must reiterate that my writing consists of my personal beliefs, thoughts, feelings, and ideals (but does not always match, as I anonymously admit, my actual behavior). Also, neither my experiences nor doctrines nor biblical interpretations are necessarily similar to other Christians. In any case, I'm compelled to state a conclusion that I'm sure many Christians would contest: God is not reliable.

My meaning rests on to what "reliable" refers. In this case, I don't intend to assert that God is disloyal, or uncaring, or untrustworthy, or implacable (or that He won't eliminate evil eventually). My point is that God simply cannot be relied upon in any of the obvious ways that humanity relies upon other things. My secondary point, which immediately follows, is that it's despicably dishonest to say and/or pretend otherwise.

For clarity, I shall enumerate.
  • God is not reliable like a machine. A machine's reliability is that, assuming the machine is fully intact and functional, it will carry out the same purpose in the same way. A calculator will reach the same answer for the same calculation (it doesn't "think", by the way - it routes electrons). An engine will convert fuel into work. A ramp will transfer between vertical and horizontal motion. God does not exhibit mechanical reliability. Confronted with an identical situation, God cannot be relied upon to act identically. Confronted with an identical prayer, God cannot be relied upon to respond identically. And so forth.
  • God is not reliable like a saint. A saint's reliability is that, assuming the saint has sufficient integrity and self-control, the saint will make a moral decision in a predictable way. God does not exhibit saintly reliability. Hypothetically, if a saint had to make the same "tough choices" as God, he or she wouldn't do what God does. For instance, if one of two people must die, and the first person is unashamedly selfish but the second is generous, an "all-powerful saint" would select the first to die (again, given the lousy requirement that one of the two will die). This is emphatically not the constant outcome in reality, where God is all-powerful and holy yet the universe doesn't unfold as if a saint was "running things". And this holds for the meting out of both punishments and rewards.
  • God is not reliable like money. Money's reliability is that, assuming the currency retains sufficient value and acceptability, money will enable someone to meet needs and, with the remainder, wants. God does not exhibit monetary reliability. People's needs aren't always met, regardless of what they believe, do, and pray. Admittedly, to some degree the needs of a person are negotiable; we few who are fortunate to live in the rich part of the world don't realize how little is necessary for painful survival. But even if only considering needs to the extent of this minimal baseline, not everyone who trusts God to provide will fare as well as those who somehow have money (or indeed anything tradable).
  • God is not reliable like health care. Health care's reliability is that, assuming the treatment is done well, health care relieves and sometimes cures sickness and injury. God does not exhibit medical reliability. He does not heal everyone nor prevent all accidents. Prayer is no guarantee that He will.
  • God is not reliable like natural laws. The reliability of natural laws is that, assuming the laws are correctly understood and applied, reality proceeds along the same patterns as before. God does not exhibit predictability. His responses, much less His initiatives, don't follow well-worn paths. No matter how much we learn about Him, we cannot reduce Him to certainties.
I believe that honest Christians have no choice but to reject the notion that God is reliable. Having rejected the notion, they shouldn't proclaim it. There are a number of plausible reasons and theories for why God is perfect and powerful while not being reliable (e.g. He knows better than us, His goal isn't to make life easy, He is simultaneously just and merciful, etc.). Perhaps Christians should conscientiously cease to trumpet God's reliability and divert their focus to explaining why He is not.

Monday, June 1, 2009

replace not negate

Previously I identified and commented on the scapegoat everyone can agree on: "American culture". Since then, it has remained a convenient, popular, invincible, and vague nemesis. Christians invoke it so very often in sermons, bible studies, etc. (And if a Christian hankers for an additional ever-trendy target for criticism and/or a rationalization for church ineffectiveness, there's always the "Christian subculture".)

In case this isn't clear: I'm tired of hearing it. As supposed residents of a new upside-down kingdom, we should do more than continually point out that the prevailing culture is defective. Each accusation against "the culture" should precede a counterpoint, an alternative, perhaps adhering to the format: "You have heard it said...but I say..." The replacement must be unambiguous and specific and either meet approximately the same set of needs or contain an explanation for why not.

Don't bother to establish the failure of culture unless providing something better.