Tuesday, October 11, 2011

advice to counteract consumerism

Last time, I opined that consumerism wasn't invented by Americans. Nevertheless, the USA economy is largely based on the consumption of its ordinary people. The pressure to consume can flow through obvious routes, like billboards and TV commercials and ads in printed or digital publications. It also can flow through subtle routes, like peer pressure and status-seeking and desires concealed by self-deception. Fortunately, Christians aren't helpless against the empty values of consumerism, and I have some advice to counteract it.

First, be on guard for consumerism's influence. Signals abound: excessive usage of credit, "fits" of shopping that consist of a string of unplanned purchases in a short time period. However, quantity isn't the only factor. Consider a vivid obsession of just one specific product, entangled with hopes and longings. Beware the thought, "If I had this, I would be so happy."

The dividing line is illustrated by the biblical story of Abraham's willingness to sacrifice Isaac, which ranks among the most disturbing sections. That extreme is in contrast with a petty soul who refuses to sacrifice mere stuff for God's sake. In my opinion, Christian devotees aren't required to live according to vows of poverty, but they're required to be "ready" to take such a vow. Anything is up for "grabs" by the Lord of all. This is a useful test. Nonessential things are to be held loosely. And most things that average Americans possess are nonessential.

In addition to conscious detachment from material goods, regular giving is a potent vaccine. Givers tend to not overspend their income. When they give, they reiterate that selfish hoarding is incompatible with Christian attitudes. Resources that are given away can't act as temptations to find fulfillment outside of God's kingdom.

While Christians certainly don't need to give everything they own or earn, they may wish to forgo their usual items from time to time. Withdrawal of these familiar items forces fewer distractions and dependencies. God remains. He's always present, but people often look elsewhere when they have the opportunity. Consumerism is the substitution of a never ending stream of trinkets.

I don't believe that objects are evil. I believe that inappropriate attention to objects can obscure God. Objects appear to be solid saviors for one purpose or another, and by comparison God appears to be shadowy and untouchable. Christian devotees should invert that perspective. God should be the solid savior who surpasses  every weaker competitor, and by comparison objects should appear to be flimsy pretenders that break and rot.

Monday, October 10, 2011

consumerism is not an American invention

People work frenziedly, then spend frenziedly, in order to accumulate frenziedly. Sellers and producers advertise frenziedly. Credit is lent frenziedly (i.e. "revolving" credit). To complain about "consumerism" is generally to complain about these economic frenzies. Christianity emphasizes morals, people, and relationships, which puts it into conflict with consumerism's values of greed, inanimate objects, and exclusive ownership.

Maybe consumerism was "perfected" in the USA. The joint causes could be abundant resources and population, technological and financial ingenuity, relatively unhampered markets, and sufficiently competent oversight. Large roles are played by the most successful retailers, product-making corporations, mass media, investment funds. Undoubtedly the economy, consumerism, and culture have reshaped one another. For now, the strongest bastion of consumerism is right here.

It's too simplistic, however, to equate consumerism and American culture. People are born with grasping urges for novelty. They reach for anything that promises to please. No teaching or training is necessary. Consumerism has extended deep roots in some nations, yet it spreads and grows to others without much resistance. Culture always matters, but culture itself changes over time.

"Rich" observers marvel at the simple contentment of people who live in nations that have minimal economies and technology. But this appearance is misleading. All people can adapt to their economic surroundings. One constant across all times and places is that people notice and compare their wealth and/or status. Some learn to be happy despite the differences, but some don't. Beyond a minimum standard of food and clothing and shelter, people can be quite happy as long as they don't consider themselves poor...

The gap is one of scope and opportunity. When societies produce very few goods for the domestic market, and mechanization and communication are primitive, the economic stratification in the society seems to be smaller. Americans have the option to consume in countless ways, and they're encouraged to exercise that option. Once presented with similar levels of encouragements and options, why wouldn't the same hold true for those of any culture? Immigrants to the USA who achieve acceptable income tend to start consuming at comparable rates, although their consumption patterns vary. "Consumerism" is what a typical person naturally does with their discretionary income, i.e. the remainder after taxes and bills and necessities. Lesser amounts of discretionary income are the likelier explanation for less consumerism. The cause isn't American culture, it's human nature.

Wednesday, October 5, 2011

impossibility or incorrigibility?

I'm somewhat amused when I read the perspective, "Merely eating less and exercising more is an approach to weight loss whose effectiveness has been disproved innumerable times throughout recorded history." While I agree that it's ridiculous to think that a person of any shape can target any weight they wish, surely it's beyond doubt that weight is affected by habits of eating and physical activity? Practically speaking, people come naturally in all sizes, but each person has the final decision on how to adjust those two "levers". Someone with the same inborn body range as me could be heavier or lighter than me, via the multitude of choices.

Some cultures put excessive emphasis on weight. Like the stars on the Dr. Seuss "sneetches", it's an easily identifiable distinction for sorting individuals by superiority. Cultural taboos and attitudes are quite variable. People who would be acceptable in one society could be scorned in a second. No sensible or universal rationale is necessary for the shaky "morals" of appearance and behavior that are invented by capricious earthly judges.

As Christians who follow God's laws, we think differently. In this case, we recognize the plain sin of gluttony, but we also acknowledge that conspicuous sins are often less deadly to the spiritual life than unseen or subtle sins. A greedy dependence on food may attract more stigma than a greedy dependence on money. Regardless, Christians shall forbid either in order to be free from enslavement to any created thing.

And when we repent of gluttony or the worship of Mammon, we live in faith of the possibility of change. We don't scoff at the idea of self-discipline. Instead we comply with the metaphorical crucifixion of our sinful leanings. Rather than contemplating and wrestling with temptation, we do something simpler: we deny it less than a toehold in our thoughts. The path to committing a sin of action or omission starts by committing the sin mentally within one's fantasies or mental plans.

Cynics are accurate in their observations of the failures of the unspiritual person to achieve personal transformation through weak natural willpower. Flesh demands fleshly actions. In contrast, Christians exercise their godly focus in practice. They release their hungers to Him, and they're revitalized to reject sin in general, including the unspiritual person's fixation on gluttony.

Wednesday, September 21, 2011

the poor don't choose to be poor

Some Christians profess a curious viewpoint on poverty. They say that within an economy of uncontrolled markets, voluntary decisions of many people are the only factors that explain economic results. Therefore, everyone has nobody to blame but themselves. In the competition of buyers and sellers, including when the negotiated items are jobs (i.e. labor, "human resources"), anyone can succeed if only they try.

Ridiculous. Economically speaking, people aren't indistinguishable "commodities" and markets aren't perfectly meritorious or open. That ideal is theoretical, like calculating physics without including friction. People differ in their inborn talents, education, upbringing, and so forth. In any case, markets don't always reward or even consider the most valuable/productive people.

I find it easier to appreciate this point by envisioning an instant switch between the circumstances of my life thus far and the life of someone else. I've received love and encouragement from my social networks (no, I'm certainly not referring to Facebook). I've received a good education. I've received relatively good care of my nutrition and health. I've received ethical and religious instruction.

These are advantages that I could easily assume everyone else also has. However, after swapping my life's advantages for another life's downfalls, can I realistically suppose that I'd achieve the same level of economic "success"?  Don't misunderstand or misconstrue my meaning; I agree that personal initiative and strength of character are hugely important ways to compensate for many formidable obstacles. But can we honestly suppose that every person in the middle class would have still ended in the middle class, had they hypothetically started in a lower class? Do we naively presume that every imagined transplant would grow to a beautiful rose, blossoming regardless to a predetermined height from out of the least nurturing soils? Without the basic skills and interpersonal connections that markets require, someone with the best intentions or a revolutionary idea could still be one of the poor. For that matter, a long string of bad luck can transform the fortunate to the unfortunate.

Of course, this complex reality of a "poverty trap" doesn't lead to the conclusion that the poor can only be economic dependents forever. Rather, when people are caught in traps, the more charitable action is to help them climb out of the trap. And provide sustenance until the assistance allows them to start participating sufficiently in markets in a more independent mode. The aforementioned ideal, income level being a personal decision, is really a goal. Just as Christians cannot force other Christians to seek God (although they can and should encourage/spur/exhort/cajole/discipline/etc), people cannot be forced to put in the necessary effort to earn the economic outcomes which they claim to want. However, charitable Christians will offer every opportunity and support to those people who do. They'll sacrifice their temporal excess resources in order to bless fellow sinners who lack.

Christians administer mercy economically, as they keep in mind the divine mercy they continue to receive. Christians aren't meant to have the mindset, "I've earned every cent I have and you've earned every cent you have. Since we're individuals in a dog-eat-dog and king-of-the-hill world, I and my finances have no relationship whatsoever to you and your finances. Don't complain to me about the markets' rejection of your utter lack of starting capital. You really should have thought of that before you became peasants."

Thursday, September 8, 2011

coercive public school prayer is no panacea

As easy as it was to forward email about any angry topic whatsoever, Facebook may have succeeded in simplifying such communication still further. Based on my experience, "Status" sometimes is about sounding off on the fervent yearning to "bring prayer back to public schools". Unfortunately, were this accomplished, it would be a symbolic gesture at best.

Nondisruptive voluntary prayer remains a cherished human right, in school or elsewhere. Admittedly, the parameters and limitations of "nondisruptive" and "voluntary" are rather sharply drawn, but the set rules are firmly in place. At times the restriction or the praying can be overzealous, and either one needs to be corrected. As long as nobody oversteps their bounds, prayer per se is certainly not "forbidden" in public schools.

Moving along, the next question is the details of the proposal. What do the words "bring prayer back to public schools" really mean? Naturally, this assumes that the person's "status" is a truly desired change that flesh-and-blood teachers and students will do, not a wishful-thinking slogan or outburst. Does it mean nothing more than a three-minute moment of silence, in which active young children are expected to be quiet and sedate if they aren't opting to pray?

To the contrary, my presumption is that what the status-writer would like is a short recitation of a canned prayer, taught and led by the teacher. After all, allowing the teacher to make whatever extemporaneous prayer he or she likes is probably not what the status-writer intends! Since there can be no religious test for public school teachers, that would be an "anything goes" proposition, perhaps including teachers who are - gasp! - atheistic.

Then the next practical question is who will write The Prayer that's taught in public schools, and who will approve it. Is there to be a tyranny of the majority, in which the religion with the least number of naysayers has the privilege of educating the rest to rigid conformity? If not, and The Prayer must meet at least a minimal standard of acceptability by a wide range of religious believers, then my suspicion is that in the end it will be "cleansed" of most doctrines that the status-writer holds dear. Claims that Jesus resurrected, or that the Bible (KJV? NIV? Septuagint?) is truth, won't last long. Does this form of completely inoffensive prayer have much to do with Christianity?

Imagine that The Prayer is eventually written and duly recited in classrooms. What is the expected outcome? Will students who are coerced into memorizing and mumbling mush act more holy? Will teachers who hurry through in order to get to the day's lesson have epiphanies? When casual attendance of weekly church services isn't enough to turn people into disciples, what effect could The Prayer have? Needless to say, those who disagree with the statements won't be any closer to salvation by mouthing the words.

Religious instruction or Bible classes are much more likely to raise children who have the right knowledge. Yet those are highly inappropriate in a school targeted at the general public. Parents may not agree with all or any of the content in those classes, and they'd be rightly irritated by the school's attempts to introduce contradictions. Far better would be if parents could select separate schools that target their particular beliefs. Everyone surely realizes that this solution has been in place in the USA for many, many years?...

I'll grant that the removal of coercive public school prayer is a symbol of the reduced influence of Christianity in the USA's culture. And its symbolic importance incites visceral feelings among some Christians. But it seems to me that a symbol is all it can be. Reversing it won't reset the past decades.

Sunday, September 4, 2011

digital fast

The "digital fast" is a popular trend. It's the practice of temporarily giving up the usual websites or the usual computerized devices. Since the Bible doesn't cover computers or electric networks, principled opinions rather than doctrines are necessary. Toward that end, here are my generalized remarks for all fasting. Christians who happen to be currently living on Earth shouldn't assume that their digital fasts are that special.
  • Fasting from particular things or activities can be a great help for Christians who feel that they're becoming enslaved to anything other than God. That includes digital technology. But it might also include woodcarving, if woodcarving is an obsession that doesn't leave any time for service to the needy. Christians can have a variety of interests, but none can be a rival to God. Compulsive obedience to any competing impulse is a concern.
  • A proper fast should refocus attention on heavenly things. The substitutes during the fast must reflect this goal. A fast from chocolate is less impressive when ice cream is the substituted food. In the same way, a fast from one website isn't too beneficial when time spent on a different website takes its place. I once heard the comment, "Fasting without praying more is just starving yourself." People may feel superior by reading unedifying books instead of viewing unedifying television, but they're missing the point. Fasting should be a change in kind of behavior, not a change in degree of behavior.
  • Throughout the fast, self-observation is paramount. The desire for the fast's subject will be noticed and rejected repeatedly. Hopefully, these experiences produce insight into the essential futility of that desire: no matter how often it's satisfied, it returns later to demand more. After the fast ends, its success is measured by the change in attitude. For instance, instant relief at the resumption of the item or activity is a side effect of its continued potency. Purposeful reduction of it, once the fast has illustrated its strength, is a more sober response.
Ultimately, the ideal solution to an immoderate craving is not a fast. Fasts are temporary but total eliminations. The better course is to tame the craving and rule it thereafter. Compared to a traditional fast from food, other fasts are a conspicuous symptom of luxury. Christians who have so many fasting choices may be tempted to treat their fasts as another consumer choice or status symbol.

The very question of fasting is an opportunity for Christians to ponder how much they could survive without. Maybe the fast is the chance to examine innermost emotional ties to the world. These ties could need to be sacrificed altogether. Not because sacrifices cause a greater sensation of "spirituality", but because sacrifices are an outgrowth of cultivating different values.

Friday, September 2, 2011

matchmaking in the Christian community

When two unmarried Christians manage to find each other, a common remark is, "I'm so glad! I knew all along that you two were well-suited to each other." But in my opinion, that remark seems rather self-incriminating. It's like "I told you so," but instead it's "I didn't tell you so."

It raises the obvious question of why the speaker didn't do anything. The majority of the Christians whom I've met are the most vociferous supporters of strong marriages. They're intent on preventing divorce. They favor premarital counseling of engaged couples. They stop just short of turning marriage and family-building into a sacred duty. Why is it that these people contribute so much less to the formation of the first stages of a (potential) marriage?

I'm definitely not suggesting that marriages be arranged by relatives or church elders. Neither am I suggesting that romantic relationships must be rule-driven or extensively supervised. I'm mentioning a curious oversight in a Christian community's attitudes. Its unmarried members surely are in need of assistance as much as the married? It's true that people are unlikely to welcome outright interference or control of their lives, and they really shouldn't allow others to do so. Yet that extreme is much different than intermediaries in the same community who simply see what the couple does not and merely brings it to their attention. On the condition that they ask permission beforehand, perhaps they could also help provide introductions or informal contexts for the two to meet.

Good unmarried Christians might spend their lives in loneliness due to ignorance of the others in the community with whom they could have blazed a marriage pleasing to God. Who cares?

Wednesday, August 31, 2011

come-to-Jesus moment

Anyone who has previously visited this blog probably can predict what I'm about to write. The expression "come-to-Jesus moment" paints the wrong picture of correct Christianity. Epiphanies, goosebumps, and euphoria aren't integral. The initial "conversion" experience isn't necessary. Moreover, long afterward, hazy memories of a spine-tingling point in time won't be enough to sustain a spiritual journey. Recapturing it isn't a primary goal unless someone is more accurately classified as a thrill-seeker than an earnest apprentice to the Master. Your personal come-to-Jesus moment doesn't distinguish you; your willingness to follow and "lift your cross" proves your loyalties. Yes, by all means, come to Jesus. Don't assume you'll halt all forward movement thereafter.

Sunday, August 28, 2011

God's backhand?

Aaaggghhh. No! No! No! A thousand times no! Natural disasters aren't heavenly judgments. Neither are terrorist attacks that are carried out by enemies of the Christian faith (I call them that because that is what they call themselves).

I will try to make this as clear as I can. Disasters strike large areas and large populations at once. Those areas contain unrighteous. Those areas contain righteous. Those areas contain unrepentant sinners. Those areas contain Christian devotees. In any case, two aspects cannot be denied about the psychological impact of such a disaster: 1) people turn not exclusively to Christianity but to any god or idol that's lying around; 2) people who are swift to beseech God to sake their skins are likely just as swift to ditch Him after the danger passes. Disasters are not for creating new disciples. Someone may give God a chance in response to the disaster, but on its own the disaster is an outrageously awful evangelist.

And no, it's not a punishable offence to elect a Democratic president who tries to come up with a government plan to support health care for the poor and/or unemployed. Even if it were, wouldn't it be spectacularly unjust to "smite" both the voters who did and did not vote for "God's candidates" (an oxy moron par excellence)? You can disagree with many political policies without speculating that the other person is an Antichrist.

Yes, I'll readily concede that Christianity is less of an overt factor in the U.S.A.'s culture than it was a century ago. I'll also concede that the U.S.A. is a "sinful nation" in the sense that many sinners are citizens. Of course, God "tolerates" us until the end times arrive. But don't these same conclusions apply to every other nation on planet Earth, and every other nation throughout history?

Insist if you will that the U.S.A. is on a downward spiral away from God's favor and we are ultimately doomed. Isn't it also true that there have been other times and places in which Christianity had barely any influence at all, e.g. less than 10% of the populace are Christian devotees, and yet God doesn't and didn't summarily snuff out those times and places? Perhaps we should be eternally grateful that God didn't crush the entire 1st century Roman empire by executing every inhabitant, thereby eliminating the infant church! Look it up. Many of those pagan Romans were surely as deserving of terrible wrath as the modern-day U.S.A.

So frustrating. People look for God's handiwork everywhere except in how they live their lives day by day. The posture during a disaster isn't shaking one's fist or applauding supposed comeuppance. It's reaching out an open hand to help. And helping regardless of the recipient.

Friday, August 26, 2011

modesty

Despite all my coverage of lust in the past few entries, I haven't stated much about modesty. Not plainly, at any rate. So here goes.
  • Mental dismissal of lust is a task for every onlooker. Regardless of (im)modesty, the final responsibility falls on the tempted. Nobody else can defeat the thoughts. 
  • Furthermore, modesty only allows a limited form of prevention. Modesty isn't an absolute barrier to lust. A fleshly person could lust for a person in modest clothing. Contrarily, a self-controlled person could cast out lust when immodest people are around.
  • Nevertheless, beyond any doubt, modesty is helpful. In particular, a community of Christians should include the expectation that everyone dresses in ways that encourage holy thinking. Of course, the same Christians should maintain the same standards whenever they associate with non-Christians, too. Non-Christians who haven't yet learned to sift their thoughts need modesty more, not less!
  • Context matters. Some activities require specialized clothing. It seems to me that Christians aren't forbidden from these activities, but whenever possible they can seek to strike a careful balance between modesty and practicality. Naturally, participation in a specific activity doesn't relax restriction against thoughts that are contrary to the will of God. Lust never should be an integral part of any activity; if it is, then perhaps Christians should abstain from that activity. If, under honest examination, a Christian admits that lust is part of the appeal of an activity, then that activity is a temptation to sin, be it only "partial".

Saturday, August 20, 2011

hypocrisy of purely spiritual romantic attraction

I recently posted a lengthy entry exploring my current viewpoint on the practicalities of combating lust, especially but certainly not exclusively by the unmarried. Part of my view is that unmarried Christians who encounter marriage candidates don't need to lust, because the stirrings of a normal yet resisted sex drive are enough for the purpose. Neither of them must obey or examine these promptings in order to prove their existence, and their very existence is what's relevant in selection for (potential) marriage.

A valid follow-up concern to the role played by this "carnal" component is how much emphasis to place on it. Is it "more Christian" for the unmarried to downgrade its importance? As spiritual beings linked by appreciation for each other's souls and virtue, and individuals looking for suitable lifelong partners whose inner qualities shall never diminish with age, is it irredeemably coarse to care about the degree of excitement provoked by the other's temporal form?

No.

Don't misunderstand. The condition and compatibility of the other's spirit is vital. A couple who have no respect are attempting to build their future on a rickety foundation. It's foolish to consider someone whose character is repugnant. It's quite self-destructive to pair up with a person who's controlled by sin (we all sin but the spiritually reborn person shouldn't be controlled by sin). Two who differ in their beliefs about the Lord of their lives are setting up a painful conflict. It's not enough to find merely someone who makes you laugh, and who is a good conversationalist. A marriage is to the "whole" person, with all the strengths and weaknesses.

But since a marriage is to the whole person, it's still hypocritical to pretend that the person's body isn't involved. And frankly, I doubt that people truly want their bodies to be irrelevant in this kind of relationship: "Do you like to look at me?"  "Your looks don't matter." Full attraction that affirms people and meets their needs will contain a bodily element. Scolding either of the two Christians for not being perfectly disembodied in their affections is a step too far. The hypocrisy is doubled when the self-appointed judge is a happily married person who massages a spouse's shoulder during the sermon rather than taking notes. The hypocrisy is redoubled when the premarital "tsks" suddenly shift to "Why don't you have a child yet?" six months after the marriage ceremony finishes. Demonizing actual lust or inappropriate contact before marriage is excellent. Demonizing any hint of desire in two people who display an earnest interest in holy marriage is unfair, unrealistic, and incorrect.

So a romantic attraction that's "purely spiritual" is mythical, and the myth is a hypocritical burden to place on the unmarried, although they like all Christians have the duty to flee sexual sin in thought and deed. Acknowledgment of the carnal contribution raises another question. What is the right timing of it? How soon should it be felt? If it's the first motive that someone experiences, is that an awful way to start things out?

Once again, I think that the question turns on a false dichotomy. A successful outcome depends on more than the evaluation of physique. It also depends on more than admiration of integrity of character. Thus, I don't think that, in the long-run, the "base" motivations are a worse point of departure than the "elevated" motivations. No matter which is more predominant at the outset, the rest will develop later. Someone who asks or accepts a date in response to the one factor should expect the other factor eventually, before the marriage stage. "That person is loving toward all things great and small" is a more lofty sentiment than "That person tickles my fancy", but neither is sufficient on its own. Early on, participants can't be expected to desire each other mind, body, and soul. Disdaining initial love for the body is hypocritical. It can't be the full extent of the basis for marriage. However, it's a workable root for everything that follows. "You wanted to go on a first date because of shallow skin-deep fascination?"  "Sure. How can I learn to love your soul until we've had the chance to talk some more?"

Sunday, August 14, 2011

answering the obvious about holy Christian singleness

A short while ago I asked the obvious about holy Christian singleness: if sexual attraction is part of the basis for a good Christian marriage, yet all sexual attraction outside of marriage is unholy, how exactly can holy Christians ever end up married? After some research, I believe that I have an answer. It's fairly complex and nuanced, as reality often is. None of the following is a novel revelation; my aim is to lay out the ideas in a plain and forthright manner. Too frequently Christians speak in confounding half-truths and platitudes.
  • "Sexual attraction", the single category I employed in the question, isn't helpful for morality. Instead there should be two categories: "lust" and "normal sex drive". Lust is the sin of a normal sex drive operating in immoral ways. So the upshot is that the holy task is to avoid lust, not normal sex drive. Actually any desire, such as craving for food, operating in an immoral way is "lust".
  • Any person with normal sex drive could react biologically when presented with an exciting stimulus, just as any person with normal hunger could react biologically when presented with tasty food. This instantaneous perception and classification of an object isn't lust. It isn't even necessarily a full-fledged temptation. It's also unavoidable, because of the presence of a normal sex drive. The sole technique to avert it altogether is to withdraw every possible experience of stimuli. Christians would need to completely separate male from female! Regardless of marital status, clothing choices, and body shapes, adults in mixed groups simply must cope with this. In particular, unmarried Christians of opposite sexes can certainly get close enough to each other to have conversations and perform acts of service! It may seem strange to mention that permission, but I'm trying to walk through the topic comprehensively, step-by-step, omitting nothing.
  • Lust starts to enter the situation after a normal sex drive makes its first recognition of someone other than the viewer's spouse. After that point, further thoughts might develop. These thoughts are temptations not only to carry out actions but to focus attention on mere contemplation of the actions. The initial thought is expressible in a statement like, "That person caught my eye", while the further thoughts are expressible in a statement like, "I want to do or think something". An object, for that is all that a person is at this primal level, is starting to lead to "plans". The stream of consciousness has begun to shift in an unlawful direction.
  • I opine that lust is still not truly committed at this stage. I believe that lust isn't there until a decision is made. That is, the person must first realize that their mind is on a wrong track, and then intentionally not put a stop to it. Three clues of indulged lust: 1) a lingering or unbroken gaze, 2) a gaze that leaves momentarily only to return shortly thereafter for no other reason, 3) social interaction that's characterized by notable lack of eye contact. Rejection of the invitation to lust might not be as rapid as it could be. Doubtless it comes easier to some than others. Everyone can improve their skill with time and practice. The primary issue is whether or not someone does halt lust, not how soon they manage. Of course, assuming someone is serious and sincere, then a specific occurrence of lust shouldn't survive for any longer than perhaps 30 seconds.
  • Unambiguous lust is the visualization of unlawful sexual action, where "action" refers to a broad range of activities: basically, whatever the lust entices the person to do to the visualized object. Unambiguous lust is the pursuit of ideas that excite a normal sex drive, outside of the lawful context of marriage. It might not be accompanied by physical acts. Pornography is one avenue. "Creative" daydreams could be a second. A third possibility doesn't receive as much comment: the nurtured desire to repeatedly see (and anticipate) someone other than one's spouse who tantalizes one's normal sex drive. To be sure, the experience could be comparatively mild; for example, it need not involve "explicit" imagining. However, it's a case of willingly-felt lust. Enjoying another person's "company" or "personality" isn't the same thing. Relatively subtle lust shows up in many little signs that aren't individually damning. Strangely deep disappointment when the object-person happens not to be in attendance. Unexplained tension during casual social interaction. An overeager tendency to exchange compliments. Excess attention at others' expense. A sensation like giddiness. If you'll allow me to illustrate... While I was a high school student, one of my teachers had a student assistant ("T.A.") for helping out with minor tasks. During that teacher's class, she was in the room, usually dressed immodestly but silently doing what the teacher assigned to her. We never talked. I don't recall a time when we had eye contact, in fact. Nevertheless, for a long time I grew accustomed to glancing at her many times during that class hour, almost automatically. I never invented sordid mental encounters. Was this lust? Well, I definitely wasn't looking at her for the sake of my education.
  • All the preceding comments apply to unmarried Christians who are intrigued in gauging each other's suitability for forming a marriage. Meaning, Christians aren't temporarily allowed to lust in order to seek or evaluate candidate "mates". Lust isn't required. The rather unmistakable psychological "vote" of a normal sex drive establishes whether the other could fill that role in the marriage; no need to ponder or dwell on that. I've read that some Christians advocate a "friendship" phase - people must call each other "friends" for a while before one of them is permitted to raise the prospect of anything else. I'm not convinced. It's better for everyone to say their current intentions and then start out "slow", than to be "friends" and allow misinterpretation to slowly creep in to the growing emotions of one or both.
  • Assuming reciprocal interest, the couple then spends time together to continue to learn and consider each other. Throughout this period between first attraction and marriage, they remain officially uncommitted and therefore unavailable for lust (or the actions that lust would motivate). This is a peculiar midway in which two people have appetites and cannot act out their impulses, despite being in close proximity. It's inherently unstable. The two either break apart or join in marriage. In the meantime, the suppression of lust isn't any different. Don't encourage it, kill it when it's there, don't fixate on it, and so forth. If the two aren't in total agreement, then one could accidentally or purposely tempt the other. Suggested guidelines aren't complicated, because the sex drive itself isn't complicated. A couple whose hypothetical end is marriage will already be partially driven by each other's nearness. Provocative clothing, private time as a pair, etc. increase the difficulty of preventing simple biology from taking over. 
In short, unmarried Christians who feel a mutual sexual attraction can surely result in a vibrant marriage, without committing the sin of lust along the way. But they must have the resolve and wisdom to see it through.

Saturday, August 13, 2011

What I won't do to appeal to unbelievers...

...is mock other Christians. It'd be too dishonest for me to try to say, "Look, unbelievers, I too think the Body and Bride of Christ is ridiculous!" Do I criticize and critique the Christianity practiced by many? Clearly yes. Do I hate Christians who are mistaken or who don't comply with arbitrary social fashions ("Horrors! They don't watch a lot of cable TV or independent movies!"). I pray that I never do. Telling uncomfortable truths, constructively, is an action that I can advocate. I won't rhetorically cast out fellow brothers and sisters in order to better integrate with cliques that exalt sarcasm (of all things) as the ultimate intellectual technique.

Tuesday, August 2, 2011

love and marriage

Usual up-front warning: my opinions are my own, I don't speak for all Christians, and so on.

I've been surprised by how frequently I hear or read the assumption that love either is or should be synonymous with marriage. And that assumption comes with a second: love can never be a sin. I think both assumptions are mistakes, as judged by a Christian perspective.

To be clear, throughout this message, by "love" I'm referring to the common societal concept of people feeling and/or acting on "romantic" attraction. Its intensity and other qualities vary greatly. According to the conventional interpretation of the Bible, its existence is never an automatic moral justification. Sin is sin, at least for some actions, regardless of the (ig)noble motivation. Quite frankly, people are never permitted to sin whether or not they deeply want to. Or whether or not they can invent persuasive rationalizations.

Again according to the conventional interpretation of the Bible, marriage is the appropriate and correct context for the expression of love. By "marriage" I'm referring to the formal, public, (semi)permanent, exclusive joining of a couple through the exchange of vows and obligations. Readers may object to this singularly unromantic definition of marriage, but that very objection strikes at the crux. Love and marriage are not synonymous!

If the two were, then the Christian laws that restrict romantic love to marriage would be totally unnecessary. It's worth remembering that, in many cultures presently and in history, love isn't a requirement for marriage. Marriages happened for many reasons and were set up by people other than the couple. Culturally, the idea of marriage as purely an outpouring of love is not self-evident.

In a curious sense, marriage is for the sake of everybody else. It establishes that the two people are a unit to be treated differently by society. For instance, they're not available for love with anyone else. They're to be caretakers of each other, each other's property, and of course their resulting children. These purposes are distinct from love but certainly not in conflict with it. This is why informal/private/temporary/open "marriages" are contradictions in term.

Officially unmarried lovers are sinning. Not because the "scrap of paper of missing", but because they're partaking outside of the stringent commitment it's intended for. The contrivance of effective contraception has caused some people to forget how eminently practical this law is. Without it, lovers could produce offspring, then abandon each other. Promiscuity before the era of contraception is messy. Promiscuity before or during the era of contraception is sinful. Marriage is for preventing selfish people from fleeing the grave physical, emotional, and spiritual responsibilities of love.

However! It seems to me that the Christian perspective on love and marriage need not be exactly equivalent to the definition of marriage in a society of plural cultures. Societies that aren't explicitly based upon Christian doctrine, or populated only by Christians, can't be expected to maintain a marriage definition that "works" only for Christians. Put another way, people in subgroups in the society could be "married" without being "married" in the societal records, and people might be "married" by societal procedure without being "married" by the standards and procedures of particular subgroups. Call it "civil marriage" versus "religious marriage".

People united in civil marriage don't require others to pronounce them "married", but they do require others to treat them as married in the ways that civil law prescribes. Their civil marriage doesn't force others to change their minds or beliefs. Free societies will contain couples of all types. Some promiscuous. Some monogamous but eschewing commitment. Some in civil marriages. Some in religious marriages. Some in both. None of them affect the Christian viewpoint which selectively condemns or blesses each relationship.

Christians hate sin. We follow the godly example in doing so. But we don't have the right to outlaw all sin or to harass and hamper the lives of people whose sin is more visible. Through government we have the right to maintain order and peace; the rest is left up to the free choices of each individual to honor God or not.

Sunday, July 24, 2011

asking the obvious about holy Christian singleness

1) Sexual attraction is part of Christian marriage. 2) Sexual attraction outside a marriage relationship is a sin. #1 and #2 are widely held to be true.

BUT where does that leave people who are Christian and unmarried? According to #2, he or she is forbidden to experience sexual attraction. According to #1, he or she probably shouldn't marry if the component of sexual attraction is absent. So how could an unmarried Christian pursue holiness and marriage simultaneously? It's a serious question. Some say, "Single man, keep your mind entirely pure, flee from the experience of sexual attraction, treat all women as kindred souls." Some say, "Single man, keep on the lookout for a woman who excites you, and after finding her you should embrace your sexual attraction by wooing her with amorous aggressiveness yet with total chasteness." Some say, "Crucify the flesh and devote your whole soul to the thought of eternal matters." Some say, "Follow your natural inclination to go forth, devote your body to a spouse, and produce offspring before you die."

Constantly instructing unmarried Christians of sexual maturity to see everyone they meet as non-sexual beings, and then acting surprised when they fail to act like sexual beings (by dating and eventually forming marriages), is extremely absurd, don't you think? Think of it this way. If looking at a particular person leads to sinful thoughts, why wouldn't an unmarried Christian cope by immediately averting eyes and thoughts? And when he or she takes the holy course of action by urgently running away from such carnal temptation, how exactly can that person also go on dates? How is someone to reconcile the two pieces of advice, "Don't even think of someone as a potential sexual partner" and "Go find someone in the church and start a family"? How can it possibly work?

This is not in any way a hypothetical concern. It's a deeply practical matter that deserves due consideration and very specific answers. Concrete answers that are likely uncomfortable to discuss. Where's the dividing line? Because some forms of sexual attraction between the unmarried are quite necessary for reproductive marriages to be the result, what distinguishes those forms from sinful sexual attraction? Conflicting directions aren't helpful! Generalizations aren't doable!

I am Christian. I am human. I am unmarried. How should someone in all three categories act? The reply, "Be less conscientious about holiness until you're married", is ludicrous, but so is the reply, "Be vigilant in guarding your mind and therefore never marry."

Sunday, July 17, 2011

the subtle danger of WWJD

I'm genuinely surprised that I haven't ever mentioned the years-old concept WWJD, "What Would Jesus Do?". In accordance with my monotonous blog litany that Christianity should be something done in addition to something said, I approve of WWJD to the degree that it reminds people to constantly contemplate the effect of Christianity on their actions. WWJD is better than asking, "What can I do for me, right here and now?"

However, the simple formula of WWJD presents a subtle danger. It could mislead the questioner. The essential problem is that it encourages people to replace divine judgment with their own moral intuitions. In the worst case, WWJD is interpreted as WSG, "What Seems Good?"

And that consideration is too important and tricky to be taken lightly. WWJD shouldn't mean creating a flawed mental image of Christ to model one's decisions. It should mean the determined attempt to uncover and apply the stated values of the true God. Like they have for centuries, Christians study and meditate on the Word, consult with their present and ancestral fellow Christians, and use reason as well as the noblest inner part, the Spirit. WWJD doesn't involve remaking Jesus into your image of Him. A slogan isn't a shortcut to right decisions.

the living God

This comment is appropriate for Easter, but I'm too late. Fortunately, it's not specific to holidays. It's specific to every day.

The Trinitarian God lives. The Son intercedes to reunite us to the Father, and the Spirit dwells. All these acts are ongoing. The Spirit changes the Christian by overpowering sin and enabling new motivations. And those acts are ongoing. The Spirit's direction is a "live broadcast". Talk about what someone must do to be "saved" is a debate about the starting line of the race. Or about how to plug the engine into a power outlet. You're saved, surely, but then you must go on to live!  We aren't saved in order to transform into beautiful statues. We are saved in order to be actors who find the passion of our performance by capturing the mind behind the play. "Mission" and "purpose" aren't addendums to the Good News, but are what happens when live people reconnect with a living God. Rituals that reorient the person to the God are life-giving, not "dead rote". A God-inspired Word is more than historical documentation. It's a path for the living God to stroll inside the willing scholar. Perhaps the most instructive dividing line between Christians is not the numerous theological distinctions. It's the difference between those who live as if in tribute to a dead God and those who live as if in communion with a live God.

Tuesday, May 31, 2011

attitude toward personal discretion

Not all Christians agree on some arenas of behavior; not all actions are commonly known to be "sin" or "holy". As conscientious devotees enact their personal discretion, there are two basic categories of possibilities: 1) restriction, 2) allowance. Which attitude shall fellow believers take? Are they to cheer restriction or allowance?

In my opinion, that question is a trick. People who always lean toward either of the two categories aren't properly exercising their own discretion. Sometimes restriction is prudent, and sometimes allowance is quite harmless. It's not a question that can be answered in general. Default answers are too often unexamined answers.

Furthermore, Christians must be highly alert to the danger of amplifying differences in personal discretion into haughy attitudes. Some consider the embodiment of commitment to consist of constant sacrifices of virtually every delight in the pursuit of holiness; some consider the embodiment of Spirit-led freedom from the Law of death to consist of joyful and love-filled improvisation combined with continual self-monitoring in every individual at every time. An accusation "Your restrictions close your mind to understanding and reaching the unbeliever" can be just as toxic as "Your permissiveness clouds your heart to understanding and reaching the Holy One".

Personal discretion isn't an excuse to take revenge on the downfalls of your upbringing through attacks on differing Christians. Whether you feel that your physically or emotionally absent parents failed to give you a firm compass, or that your domineering and humorless parents failed to give you affection for God, your opportunity is to move beyond rather than merely react against their excesses.

Monday, May 23, 2011

problematic virtues

Oddly enough, I suspect that for too many Christians the mental barrier to greater spiritual growth is what they call their "virtues". Whenever a Christian conveniently considers a personal flaw as a virtue, it's a blindness. How can someone start to improve without first recognizing the need for improvement? Ponder the possibilities...
  • "I'm bold". But are you also impatient or foolhardy?
  • "I'm truthful". But are you also attentive and wise about when and how to speak the truth?
  • "I'm compassionate". But are you also respectful of others' autonomy?
  • "I'm holy". But are you also contemptuous?
  • "I'm visionary". But are you also willing to incorporate feedback?
  • "I'm strong". But are you also distant?
  • "I'm joyful". But are you also responsive to the pain around you?
These variant inclinations are just one reason for Christians to join together. Christians in a group can expose and smooth everyone's rough edges. And since not all strengths are appropriate at all times, they can cooperate to send the best person for each task. Even the difficulty of confronting and accepting Christians who are radically different from oneself provides a stage for exercising Christianity.

For instance, I'm aware that I have far to go. I struggle with the assumption that people who are typically courageous have tiny and limp imaginations. I think to myself, "If he, like I, had any creative inkling of what could go wrong or how extremely unpleasant it would be, he wouldn't have that rather blank facial expression of nonchalance." Then again, I was one of those children who couldn't watch monster movies without experiencing subsequent horrific phantasms that stealthily stalked me...

Thursday, May 5, 2011

is it there or not?

This is supremely illuminating about the public's way of thinking. People have spent extended periods of time debating how and why there is a Christianity without Hell, only to abruptly shift to the opinion that a specific "truly awful" dead person must be in Hell.

Arguments about the very existence of something cannot be murky or half-resolved. The answer is "yes" or "no", "aye" or "nay", "true" or "false", "reality" or "fantasy", "fiction" or "nonfiction". There can certainly be discussion about the precise nature and characteristics of the disputed thing, but those are separate prior questions.

I could assert or retract innumerable rhetorical claims about the absence of my hairbrush. But the fact is that it's sitting right over there in another room, with volume and mass quite independent of my imaginings to the contrary. I could do the same about the presence of my rowboat in my backyard. But the fact is that no rowboat is in my backyard.

Hell is the same way. People can think and say whatever they like, but if they constantly contradict their own statements, it's difficult to figure out how their beliefs, ill-defined guesses that shift around like the tide, could ever be confirmed or violated. If someone isn't taking a position either way, or taking opposite positions simultaneously, it's more honest to just express one's total lack of clarity than to give away one's lack of intellectual commitment by spewing out half-considered sentiments on a deeply important topic.

Saturday, April 30, 2011

a metaphorical Bible

Not too long ago I read a heartfelt essay from a self-identified Christian. He attempted to argue that "overly literal" interpretations of the Bible may reflect a disdain for truth. To summarize, he claimed that since the Bible contains apparent contradictions with itself and with external reality/history, e.g. locations that are difficult to distinguish, timelines that are too compressed to be real, etc., then no serious believers should try to put their faith in dubious biblical facts. Rather, he advised them to acknowledge metaphorical truths of the Bible. Therefore the stories have moral points, the events have mythological impact or emotional heft, and of course God's actions are presumably hypothetical examples for mankind.

My reaction to this is a little complex. I don't think the Bible is intended as a stringently historical document. Not all of the tiny details of an eyewitness account must be perfectly accurate in order for the major points to be materially true. I also don't think the Bible is intended as a science textbook (flashback to 2007 with that link!). Its focus is clearly on interactions between God and pre-scientific people.

However, my assumption remains that the Bible is an imperfect communication of absolute truth. God is a creator, ruler, provider, and savior. God has acted in many ways as the Bible describes. Given these premises, "miracles" are quite possible. Furthermore, God came in the flesh as the man Jesus, died, and rose. Regardless of the fuzzy narrative liberties that may exist in the Bible, these items happened. Christians settled on such theological points. Their goal wasn't to stifle reason or individual experience. It was to avoid mass confusion and false education as the spread of Christianity inevitably led to people who wanted to use it as a base ingredient of flashy/attractive sects and religious mishmash.

Here, a metaphorical Bible begins to break down, because the entire Bible surely isn't intended to be entirely metaphorical. "Metaphorical truth" is convenient above all. By definition, metaphors don't have independent/self-evident meaning and implications. Like poetry, metaphorical language requires the reader to reconnect the text with something else to attain the whole word-picture. They must read between the lines, expand, contract, whitewash, recolor, add, erase. A metaphorical Bible is ideally suited for a postmodernist who wishes to construct a "brand new text" from out of the interaction among writer, text, reader, subtext, context, etc. In this process, the reader's expectations are automatically confirmed.

Shifting meanings of metaphorical truth are also convenient guides for behavior. Commands that seem right to a man are less metaphorical, and the lesser-liked are more metaphorical. In extreme cases like that exhibited by the essay that I read, there isn't anything unique about the Bible in comparison to any other "metaphorical book". After all, morality tales elsewhere are also good for encouraging nice living and knowledge about basic human nature. I anticipate the next essay from the writer (the following is not a quote, only a guess):
Perhaps we should form an afternoon church service around intense study and celebration of Aesop's Fables. In fact, all the Christian singing and recitation about atonement is a really difficult metaphor, so let's drop it. That applies tenfold to the awful stuff about being a "bought slave to Christ". And Easter can't be about actual resurrection; it's an existential literary illustration of the positive human ability to continually redefine your personal identity as you see fit. No wonder all the people whom we like will join us in heaven regardless of religious inclination. Their sacred books are just as metaphorical as ours. And those atheists who don't live like jerks are gonna look so surprised when they receive their reward of eternal blessings right alongside us...

Monday, April 18, 2011

practical privatization of charity

My pattern is to be silent on politically-charged (in the USA) issues. One huge category of these is the overall role of government. What is the economically-optimal and/or morally-just ratio of the "public" and "private" sectors? Which achievements benefit from government's unique qualities?

Well-intentioned Christians differ on to what degree government should direct resources into charity. By "charity" I only mean supplying a cost-free individual benefit of some kind to recipients who can't afford the market price (1,2). Many Christians seem to think that government is an invaluable instrument for large-scale charity. Many other Christians seem to think that government involvement in such charity is too costly in terms of the reduction in private liberty (3).

I'm not interested here in producing arguments for either opinion. But what I find striking is a significant missing part of the debate. If someone supports a near-total privatization of charity, then doesn't that position entail a realistic plan for doing so? For government to drop charitable functions, it must be assumed that people will make up the difference. If people will be better givers without government in the way, then how will this occur? There's no question that less government giving can result in a lower tax rate, but afterward what percentage of those former tax amounts must be exclusively redirected to charity in order to continue to care for the poor?

This is a pivotal consideration for the plan to work. Assume (4) the plan subtracts from a particular person's effective tax rate percentage. How much of that difference will the person dedicate instead to direct private charity? Statistically, some people will end up giving less and some people more. So in the aggregate the question turns into the average amount that people contribute from their tax cut. When everything is summed, do the poor come out ahead or not after the proposed privatization of charity (5)? Furthermore, Christians should keep in mind that they'll likely need to give in excess to drag the average back up to a desirable range despite the "unprincipled deadbeats" who'll opt to take the tax cut difference and spend it on electronic geegaws, for example.

Public-sector charity has considerable administrative inefficiencies (6). Private-sector charity has considerable moral inefficiencies (i.e. personal selfishness). I think it's worth asking which is more detrimental in practice.

1. Obviously the definition of the Christian virtue of charity can be much broader.
2. The benefit could be money itself, in which case "can't afford the market price" refers to not having income-yielding capital/assets. For a typical worker who trades their labor for income, the corresponding capital/assets might be education/skills and the necessary physical and mental capability to do the job. 
3. I purposefully exclude from consideration a possible third group of "Christians" who flatly object to the mere monetary cost of charity.
4. I admit this would be more convincing with the actual numbers, but I don't have the information.  
5. Of course, this calculation should also include resulting differences in the poor's taxes. However, in the case of most poor, their taxes are very low both before and after the plan takes effect.
6. And so do many huge privately-owned foundations.

Saturday, April 2, 2011

The ultimate reason why Hell is possible...

...is because many, many people want there to be one. It strikes me that those who dismiss Hell by focusing on God's qualities (i.e. Hell cannot exist since He is love and mercy) are quite correct about Him; I don't actually believe that Hell is God's invention, or He rules and tends it, or He's eager for people to experience it. In my church's tradition, we don't even believe that the lost are "predestined" in any tangible sense.

No, God's not responsible for Hell. He can't be, when Hell is the absence of Him and all His influence. This sin and Hell stuff aren't part of the plan. That's humanity's contribution! The Gospel is that Hell is now a choice rather than a foregone conclusion for people depraved from birth.

In short, Hell must exist because of the rebellious and stubborn character of many, many people. They choose and so they can resist and reject the divine. "You may be God, but as for me I make the decisions and determine/measure/judge the Truth!" Hell doesn't decrease God's perfection in the least.

Hell is the person who, placed in Eden, does exactly the one forbidden act. Hell is the person who, placed in the City of God, defaces the palaces with obscene graffiti. Hell is the person who simply can't accept unconditional love due to the firm belief that no one could possibly love him or her for no reason. Hell is the person who takes and takes and takes. Hell is the person who pursues a thousand cheap thrills instead of one hard-earned genuine moment of joy. Hell is the person whose absolute fear of entrapment bars him or her from expressing love through sacrificial commitments. Hell is the person who sees the worst motive in every innocent act. Hell is the person who can never sympathize and never negotiate in good faith. God is love, but a stiff-necked and acrimonious people will refuse Him unto the uttermost. It's presumptuous of us to underestimate their resolve to supplant God. Hell is what happens when you reign.

Sunday, March 20, 2011

proving them right

Group 1: Enemies of the faith claim that we invent God and all related ideas.

Group 2: People who are for Christianity but against "organized" flavors willingly admit that their beliefs are based on their personal intuitions and emotions. For example, "The God Whom I worship would always judge people like me to be acceptable. He thinks and acts in ways that, conveniently, make perfect sense to me."

Aren't the people in group two confirming the hypothesis of the people in group 1? Whenever I read the Bible and confront its truth, I'm often reminded that the difficult doctrines of Christianity don't always fit my preconceptions and prejudices and preferences.

Sunday, March 13, 2011

a few short reminders on Hell and Universalism

Of late I've been reading some controversy on the Web about the ever-disturbing topic of Hell, and one heresy thereof, Universalism. And as usual it strikes me that while some of the answers are right and some are wrong, Christians often seem to be asking either the wrong questions or phrasing the right questions in unhelpful ways. None of the following are new opinions of mine, so I term them "reminders". To the best of my understanding, my thoughts are doctrinally sound, but I suppose everyone says that about themselves...

  • There is Hell. There is punishment. Put simply, God's perfect justice will fall upon the rebellious and cast them out from Him. It's their choice whether or not to obey Him by living in righteousness and love. If there were no consequences for fully-aware decisions to rebel (i.e. sin) , then Jesus Christ died for nothing. Jesus' earthly teaching was invaluable, but He is more than a teacher; He predicted His death and submitted to it for a reason.
  • Without faith it is impossible to please God and be reunited to Him. This means that good people without faith are damned. There's no ambiguity on this point. 
  • Faith, the kind that saves, is characterized by change. The faithful bring their beliefs and actions, their entire beings, under His lordship. Complete faith is not participation in the right ritual or word-perfect recitations of unknown concepts. Faith makes an unmistakable difference in the life of the faithful.
  • As for arguments about how to distinguish/define genuine rather than counterfeit faith, my personal interpretation of the position that my Christian tradition takes is "Ask God and find out." A real God, whose Spirit person really works, can reassure you. If the Spirit is working in you, bringing about the changes of saving-faith and wielding you as an instrument for good in the world, then you're saved! If the Spirit isn't working through you, and you the weak mortal are continually failing to overcome your sin by relying on your compromised strength, then you have good reason to be unsure. The Almighty casts out fear and selfishness. Let the light in. Invite and embrace. God lives and wants to live in you in a more literal sense than the modern-day Christian acknowledges. After death, when the saved are taken by God, there's no uneasiness. For them there's no "scale" to compare the weight of good and bad actions. There's Him. The source of their Christian life, the power of their Christian life, and the destination of their Christian life. In the afterlife they'll continue what started at the time of their spiritual rebirth.

Sunday, January 9, 2011

grand rewiring

The devoted Christian life is undeniably spiritual. Yet a singular focus on the spiritual dimension of everything is also an error.

This is especially true for behavioral improvement. In my opinion, many Christians would be further along if they simplified the problem by deemphasizing the "spiritual" aspects, be it only for a moment. Of course, prayer and seeking for the divine anointing of power and truth should continue, but also reconsideration through a different mindset.

Think of the soul through an analogy more commonly employed, very loosely, for the brain: a massive tangle of wires that connect sensors and reactions. At birth, the soul-wire connected to a coveted object also connects to grasping and consuming of the object. The soul-wire connected to God is connected to rebellion. A soul-wire links the self with egocentric pride. Whenever the target is sensed, the soul-wires conduct the signals in such a way that literal depravity is the soul reaction.

After salvation, when the soul comes under the influence of God and His church, a significant proportion of the wires change. Past preconceptions and attitudes begin to shift as the same situations lead to diverging responses. Increasingly the soul-wires attach to love of God and humanity, even enemies. The soul-wires that carried out a past addiction may remain for an exceedingly long time, but operating in a flaky hit-or-miss fashion. This is the grand rewiring, a miracle in which the members of the body that were formerly oriented toward evil then become oriented toward good. Holiness is no longer alien to the soul but instead suffuses it. It's not perfected but its inclination is at least less evil. Goodness is more "natural", i.e. less of a chore. Teaching is thus important because it's part of the process to renew the mind. It introduces novel categories and assists in assignments to those categories.

Now consider a strategy of holiness that's nothing more than monthly vows to do better (or, worse, a yearly resolution). Is it surprising that this strategy is flawed? Soul-wires don't move because someone makes an idle wish. Working against the effect of the unmoved soul-wires is exhausting. All the triggers that "set one off" will simply remain. Patterns will simply recur as patterns do.

Active participation in the grand rewiring requires that someone steadfastly adjust their thoughts, emotions, and actions in accordance with God's express will. Devotees don't rely on split-second course corrections to be holy. Rather, they redirect their vision to the Lord long before the moment hits. They study and memorize the Word, not out of duty but out of an ardent passion to better know Him. They're eager to reconfirm the lessons by putting into practice. They flee temptation merely because it pollutes and dilutes their attention. It may take a lot of effort to undermine and change soul-wires, which is why rewiring is best done frequently and fervently.

Observing from the outside, some people might comment that "All the worshiping and teaching of Christianity should be secondary to just doing the right thing day by day. Singing pretty songs and debating theological points is completely peripheral to what religion should be about."

Admittedly some Christians probably need to hear that sentiment. But in light of the grand rewiring it's somewhat backwards. The closer that Christian spirits approximate the Spirit of God, the holier that their behavior is.

heaven of indulgence

Is heaven good? To ask the question may appear nonsensical. Won't the good God be setting all the rules, wiping away every tear, and sustaining everything forever? Amen!

But I wonder if people may misunderstand when they presume that heaven is a place of indulgence. I for one believe that the training in righteousness and restraint that we undergo throughout life is not wasted. We don't eat right on Earth with the understanding that our heavenly bodies will then enable us to be gluttons without consequence. We don't share with and sacrifice for others on Earth with the understanding that everyone will sit on inexhaustible stacks of precious gems in heaven's economy. (Side note: ever hear the joke about the soul who tries to carry gold into heaven, only to be confronted at the gates with the reasonable question "Why are you so concerned with hoarding pavement?") We don't work industriously at our jobs as unto God with the understanding that God's court will be populated purely by sluggards and leisure seekers. And most of all we certainly don't earnestly worship the Lord before death with the understanding that in the afterlife the universe will finally revolve around us instead.

Does heaven imply the freedom to do, have, and be whatever you wish? Heavens no. People shouldn't think, whether they say it out loud, that Christianity consists of a simple trade between putting on a saintly face in the present in order to receive the "right" to unending self-gratification in the distant future. Seek and obey God and trust that He will care for you. You cannot escape from Him in any case. So holiness matters in every time and place. The cultivation and sanctification of your deepest character may as well start now.

And why not? Christianity supposes that the Master of heaven is currently reachable! Heaven is the new creation. The Spirit working in you brings about a portion of that new creation. You're intended to be a new creature whose old foibles are replaced. You're an immediate window, however smudged, for the light of heaven to shine into time. Living as He directs won't be stopped by something so trivial as human death. Heaven will be a place to act like a saint, not like a savage.