optimism or pessimism?

Here's a stray thought. It's effortless for me to think of ways that my life could be worse. Am I a pessimist, because of my inventiveness in imagining worse worlds? Or am I an optimist, because all those worlds are worse than the one I'm in? Or am I neither, because I believe that the world could be much worse but it could also be much better?

Like most other successful perspectives, Christianity presents a nuanced perspective on the question. It can't be exclusively pessimistic nor optimistic. First, some Christian ideas that lean toward pessimism:

• paradise is ruined
• God's just rule is deferred
• people in their natural state are depraved
• few are willing to love and obey God completely
• the moral law condemns

Second, some Christian ideas that lean toward optimism:

• paradise will be restored
• God's just rule is inevitable
• people infused with the Spirit are liberated from the control of sin
• anyone at any time can choose to repent
• the Atonement saves the condemned

Joy and Hope don't come from a blissful existence. Joy and Hope come from fixation on truths that are deeper than the imperfect details of the Fall.

the heaven of pop theology

Popular or "pop" theology is an odd mixture of disorganization and surprising self-consistency. The self-consistency comes from an unstated principle: "Theology is all about me." For example, devotees of the heaven of pop theology talk like this. (Did I mention the 20/20 television report about heaven on July 6?)

Heaven is a paradise after earthly death, which will contain me and everyone I like. I know that I will be there because I don't do evil every moment of every day, and because I don't have evil intentions every moment of every day. So not only me, but people I consider similar to myself, will be there. Others who are different yet who treat me well will be there. Those who are mean to me are clearly awful people who won't be there. Religion won't matter. God, or the gods, or the First Cause, or whatever, will be able to figure out which people are the right ones, regardless of what any of us believe. It just wouldn't be nice if the choice of religion disqualified people I like. In fact, most people are born good enough anyway, and as long as we avoid the horrible choices like mass murder, we'll get in. I'm not a saint, and since I'm the standard for admittance into heaven, nobody else needs to be a saint either. Once we're there, we won't do boring or divisive goody-goody activities like worship. We'll be in a state of never-ending bliss. Everyone will be the same as they were, yet everyone will finally manage to be happy together, somehow. There might be different levels of rewards, but I wouldn't worry about it; heaven will be heavenly whether or not you're one of the weirdos who lived sacrificially. 

This is the heaven which is consistent with "moralistic therapeutic deism", of course. This is the heaven for people who love themselves and therefore can't imagine how heaven's security guards could turn them away.

eligibility and spiritual growth

By "eligibility" I mean romantic eligibility. I apologize upfront to readers who aren't interested in the topic, but it's where my thoughts have drifted. Whether stated plainly or not, Christians have suggested that "spiritual growth", i.e. advancing in Christian practices and virtues, increases eligibility. When a devotee loves and pursues God, they're more eligible.

That is ludicrous.

Countless counterexamples are everywhere. The biblical support for this assumption is ambiguous too, especially since the present idea of eligibility isn't applicable to the cultures described, which often treat marriage as a practical matter. Although it certainly can be true that devoted Christians are also quite eligible, it's a blatant mistake to make a general principle out of those fortunate cases.

On the other hand, despite the distinction between the two, spiritual growth can still act as a beneficial support for eligibility. Some vices are repulsive, like cruelty or cheating or gluttony. If eligibility is a continuum, then obvious wickedness places an individual toward the low end. It's uncontroversial among Christians to conclude that a functional relationship with God is more likely to coincide with functional relationships with others. God favors peace and truth in human interactions.

Hence I'll concede that a minimum of spiritual attainment is more or less a requirement for eligibility, just as it's a requirement for fruitful participation in society. But to return to my main point, beyond that minimum, spiritual growth isn't the same as greater eligibility. This observation applies as much to Christians as to unbelievers. Christians value spiritual growth more than unbelievers, and they encourage and applaud it. But their measurements of eligibility are mostly identical. Vibrant Christianity, springing up in disciples like living water, should cause an eligible Christian to be noticeably different from an eligible unbeliever. However, the characteristics that identify the Christian as "eligible" are exactly like those that identify the unbeliever as "eligible".

I don't need to list all these well-known traits of eligibility, but some of the more widespread ones are power, status, appearance, prosperity, personality, talent, intelligence. Christians are being highly misleading when they talk as if spiritual growth necessarily improves the ratings of these traits. I'm sure they have good intentions as they offer this wrong advice. "Get closer to God, and those of the opposite sex will want to join you on that journey." Given my past entries here, my expressed opinion is that spiritual growth is worthwhile regardless of any side-effects, so I could never say that it's detrimental advice. But if the aim is eligibility, its insufficiency is glaring.

Pity the earnest gullible Christians who believe it. What pleases God may simply not be enough to please humanity. The traits of eligibility are not the fruits of the Spirit. A godly soul is wonderful to behold, but it's extremely easy to overlook when it's combined with deficiencies in the traits. People are capable of appreciating subtle virtues. Nevertheless, they frequently won't pay attention unless they're enticed. If I may be blunt (said the anonymous writer), depending on the Christian, fashion tips might be much more productive, for the sake of eligibility, than reading Bible chapters.

It helps nobody to maintain the artifice that eligibility is radically distinct for Christians. Christians of the opposite sex are on the lookout for many of the same traits as unbelievers. We should stop pretending otherwise.

Christian gender laws?

I mentioned the few misguided Christians who rely lazily on their gender as an excuse to indulge in preferred sins or to refuse actions they dislike. But another problem could arise: treating strong distinctions of gender behavior like Christian laws. This practice falls into the general category of mistaking cultural norms for divine norms. It might be expressed, "You can't be a good Christian [woman,man] unless you act like _____."

As I mentioned in the other entry, some cultural gender stereotypes are quite compatible with the life of a devotee...but some aren't, at least when carried to extremes. (I don't necessarily mean extreme in comparison to the standards of the culture itself, which as a whole could be off-kilter.) Moreover, restrictive ideas, interpreted as essential Christian commands, have a terrible side-effect of exclusion from the church gathering. Regardless of whether congregants don't consider it "sinful" to violate unstated gender expectations, social disapproval still communicates the violator's unworthiness.

It may be uncomfortable that people don't always fit in tidy gender-defined boxes. But nobody who calls themselves "Christian" has the right to claim that God made a mistake when He fashioned an unconventional individual.

one of the worst parodies of Christianity...

...is harassment of sinners. But of course it's fine to have calm, respectful conversation about another person's wrong choices, especially after forming a relationship of trust. Harangues at sinful "targets" are obviously far less effective at communicating the love of God or restoring that person's connection to Him.

Our calling is not to make sinners miserable.

human nature sampling error

If you think that all people are terrible scoundrels with the worst intentions, or that all people have good intentions underneath, or that all people are born innocent, or that all people are born with nothing but selfishness...then you need to meet more people. "Natural" behavior has a huge range which thwarts a right statistical sample. The depths are lower than expected and the heights are higher than expected. Since it's impossible for us to meet everyone, too often we fall into the trap of assuming that the much smaller group whom we've met is a good representation of the whole. This is a vital reason why a protected (but not necessarily isolated) upbringing helps to cultivate the willingness to believe the "best" about everyone until proven otherwise; rough defensive survival leads to the habit of perceiving threats all around.

The doctrine of Christianity is that human nature is fallen. We cannot create a paradise for ourselves, not even when we start with an extremely selective subgroup (Puritans?). But we retain our former glory to varying degrees. Either the inherent good or the inherent bad is exaggerated over time. In any case, the good isn't good enough. Regardless of someone's human nature in comparison with the rest of the populace, supernatural change is the prescription. Our limited samples of humanity tend to be incomplete evidence about the truth of human nature in one way or another, but God is not fooled.

the gender excuse

I'm stunned by the variety of excuses for sin. Yes, that includes my own. Previously I mentioned the tendency to blame "virtues" for excesses of some kind. For instance, " 'Exhortation' is my specialty. Regardless of whether my words hit people like wrecking balls, I'm not doing anything wrong." 

Another category of excuse is gender. These excuses take the general form, "I realize that an attitude or action is sinful in some way, but it exemplifies my gender. Do you honestly expect me to deny my gender differences?" This is akin to entangling a sense of identity with sin, following to an extreme the sometimes misguided advice to "be yourself".

I opine that God doesn't want gender to disappear (although it's an intriguing question about our future heavenly bodies). I'd say that part of what the surrounding culture calls "masculine" or "feminine" is praiseworthy, but not every part. As Christian devotees called to a spiritual life, we will be inevitably countercultural. We should pursue right attitudes and actions and not fear narrow classifications of masculine or feminine, which are assigned by the flawed ideas of our culture. It may not be comfortable. It may not be conventional. 

But we cannot misuse gender to choose which sins to prefer, including sins of omission. The fruits of the Spirit in Galatians 5:22-23 aren't gender-specific. Christians cannot place either too much or too little emphasis on each. It's pitiful to claim, "I can't be like that. I'm too [masculine,feminine]." Faithful disciples continue to have genders, but they don't continue to have the same sins. 

conversation about Jesus is not equivalent to church

Imagine a group of people who meet at an informal location and converse about Jesus for a while. They refer to the Bible, share their opinions, engage in gentle debate, and so on. Was that church? More to the point, are they therefore part of The Church? Is that activity a full alternative to the typical church service, which might be off-putting to some of the conversationalists? Is a Bible Book Club enough?

It seems to me that conversation about Jesus is surely something that Christians should do, and frequently, with or without unbelievers. But regardless of their feelings toward traditional church, wouldn't any devotee admit that a victorious Christian life is much more? And wouldn't they further admit that a group of Christians, by combining efforts and wisdom, is more effective than an individual Christian?

I don't mean that it's a "bad" idea to gather to discuss the finer points of Christendom. I mean that those discussions aren't the entire reason for churches to exist. Sermons are increasingly easy to find and obtain (check a podcast directory online). In contrast, church membership also includes discipleship, giving, service, confession, correction, among other group interactions. If salvation is thinking the right thoughts, then aimless talking could be enough. If salvation is a radical transformation from the inside out, proceeding from an infectious Holy Spirit, then a church of the saved is people spurring one another on to love and good deeds.

We shouldn't try to avoid hypocrisy by doing nothing. We shouldn't try to avoid legalistic unmerciful judgments by ignoring the concept of sin. We shouldn't try to avoid preachiness by never saying we have the truth. We shouldn't try to avoid doctrinal controversies by throwing out sacraments. And finally, we shouldn't try to avoid scaring people with Hell by pretending salvation in this life doesn't matter.

abnormal

I got around to completing my tax return today. At the end TurboTax checked for risk factors for an IRS audit. It found one; it reported it as "Your amount of charitable contributions is abnormally high for your income level."

Of course it is! Why would someone who claims to be a Christian devotee expect any other outcome? According to this link,  the average amount claimed is about 3% of income. If you're going against the grain of materialism by living strictly within your means, and giving is in your budget, then surpassing 3% isn't difficult at all. We the grateful, who continually receive merciful divine forgiveness and grace, should be the pacesetters for distributing our blessings to the needy.

a trinity of infinities

Explanations of the Triune God often resort to analogies. These analogies tend to suggest that each of the three parts must be less than the whole. And a triangular division into three also tends to suggest that the whole must be finite: else how could something be a third of infinity?

Yet a mathematical analogy for infinity is available. Suppose that someone counts, and never stops counting. The resulting collection of numbers is "all the multiples of 1". These are usually called the natural or whole numbers. The entire collection is limitless, which is provable by a straightforward test. Any time you think you've reached the largest number, count one more time. The next number is greater than any of the prior numbers, so it's a new number (i.e. not equal to any of the others). Therefore the set is produced by a well-understood procedure, and nevertheless infinite or unbound.

Now consider some different procedures that result in different sets. The numbers 3, 4, and 5 have no factors in common; none is a multiple of the other two. 3, 4, and 5 are quite distinct. Now, for each number in the set from before, i.e. all the multiples of one, multiply that number by 3. If it helps, think of two tedious people standing side by side. After the first person counts, the second person immediately multiplies the new number by three. This set is "all the multiples of 3". Like all the multiples of 1, it's produced by a well-understood procedure, and nevertheless infinite or unbound.

We can do the same for 4 and 5. Finally, there's four infinite sets: the multiples of 1, 3, 4, 5. Since the procedure to construct the set of multiples of 3 consisted of multiplying each multiple of 1 by 3, all the multiples of 3 are also multiples of 1. The same applies to all the multiples of 4 or 5. These sets are provably infinite and still included in the "whole" original set, the multiples of 1. We have a trinity of infinities that are still contained in a infinite whole.

Although the member-numbers of the three infinite sets all belong to the set of natural numbers, the three sets aren't completely distinct. Presently, there are numbers that are multiples of both 3 and 4 (the multiples of 12), or 3 and 5 (the multiples of 15), or 4 and 5 (the multiples of 20). If it's more satisfying to consider three distinct infinite sets, then alternative procedures could accomplish that goal. However, the cost is greater complication and the exclusion of many former multiples. For the "3" set, instead of multiplying each natural number just by 3, 1) multiply by 3 then 2) multiply by 4. The result is a multiple of both 3 and 4, simply because it's equal to 3 multiplied by "other stuff" (i.e. the original natural number) and equal to 4 multiplied by "other stuff" (i.e. the original number multiplied by 3 a moment ago). Similarly, 3) multiply that by 5 to achieve the end goal of a number that's a multiple of 3 or 4 or 5. Now take that number and 4) add 3. This final number is a multiple of 3, because it's 3 added to a multiple of 3. On the other hand, it isn't a multiple of 4, because it's 3 added to a multiple of 4, which is 1 too few to "reach" the next multiple of 4. Neither is it a multiple of 5, because 3 is 2 too few to "reach" the next multiple of 5. Presto! The procedure can start with any (all) natural number and construct a number that's a multiple of 3 but not 4 or 5. Procedures that are broadly similar can produce an infinite set of numbers that are multiples of 4 but not 3 or 5, and an infinite set of numbers that are multiples of 5 but not 3 or 4. Due to the logical fact that a particular number can't both be a multiple and not be a multiple, it's a logical impossibility for a number that belongs to one of these sets to belong to either of the others. The first few members of the "3" set are 63, 123, 183, 243. The "4" set, 64, 124, 184, 244. The "5" set, 65, 125, 185, 245. (Naturally, the predictable gaps of 60 between adjacent numbers are due to 3 times 4 times 5. If you graphed these procedures as mathematical functions, with the result as the vertical axis and the starting number as the horizontal axis, you would see a set of closely space parallel lines.)

All different, all infinite, all drawing from the same source.

wrong question

Presently in the USA, I've observed more speculation than usual about the question of whether God favors particular outcomes in professional sporting events. Let me repeat the same opinion I always have for this category of questions. If your desire is to decode a supernatural Hand from out of the prosaic ups and downs that fill daily reality, then you're asking the wrong question entirely.

It's the wrong question for two simple reasons. God is too big, and the stakes too small. There are innumerable circumstances that are better opportunities for undeniable and necessary divine intervention. A sporting event is over in less than a day. Its consequences last for no longer than months and amount to not much more than lots of exchanges of money and perhaps some awards and/or injuries. Winning is of course a formidable obstacle to the players, but for God it's no trouble at all. It's not anywhere close to miraculous.

If you crave a real test, then consider a situation in which lives are in danger and in which no mere person could do enough. Like sporting events, obviously these situations also happen every day. People wage seemingly hopeless battles for the prizes of survival, dignity, relationships, and many others. Is God at work in those many battles? Like in the song "Take Me Out to the Ballgame", does He "root! root! root!" for good to win every time? 

I suppose that the eternal mystery of the unfathomable thoughts of the Infinite One prevent anyone from saying for sure that He contemplates professional sporting events. Nor can anyone say for sure that God contemplates anything else. But we do know that He cares about people.