Worldview Fragment: church as society of friends

Worldview fragment: one or more related ideas/viewpoints that can (and often do) serve as a component or flavor in a complete worldview held by some specific individual. The "fragment" term is not intended to be a subtle insult, but to accurately reflect the reality that the fragment is 1) not necessarily an actual, comprehensive worldview, and 2) could likely coexist with a variety of other fragments within some individual's worldview. A puzzle piece isn't worthless because it's a puzzle piece.

I've previously mused about what it means to be an introverted Christian, and perhaps I had more questions than satisfying answers. Nevertheless, I'm still a Christian and still introverted. Recently, I thought about it from a different angle: my impression is that for some, one of the fragments of their overall worldview is the concept of the church as a "society of friends".

Basically, I keep hearing that people in the church should interact beyond a formalized slate of weekly activities. They should meet urgent needs that arise, give confessions and encouragement and admonishment, share joy and sadness, pray and study, etc. Sounds like a society of friends to me.

But how are the friendless and ignored expected to react to this vision of the church? As I explained in detail when I described my experience of being both Christian and introverted, it's abundantly apparent that I don't have the prerequisites for "fitting in". My hobbies and interests aren't like the others in my church. I don't even watch the same TV shows. I'm not charming. I don't put people at ease. As a never-married adult, I'm categorized differently than most of the church. My talents and/or "gifts" aren't suited to up-front exposure, so I'm not well known. In short, it seems that after taking everything into account, nobody wishes to voluntarily spend time with me. (And of course, saying this complaint out loud, to anyone, would merely mark me as self-pitying and therefore less worthy of friendship.)

Now, this situation has never stopped me from contributing financially, volunteering for various tasks behind the scenes, having short awkward conversations on Sundays, communicating my insights in bible studies, voting like all the other full members of the church, singing in groups, and so on. However, if church is meant to be more, if it's meant to resemble a society of friends, if utmost spiritual growth necessitates that model, if church is about giving oneself in relationships, then the state of my social life relegates me to a "lower tier" of Christianity, does it not? In that case my participation is more like the support machine hooked up to the Body than one of its organs, isn't it? Given that true church is a society of friends, my flagrant inability to befriend (or to be befriended) disqualifies me, and others with similar issues?

Worldview Fragment: everything is political

Worldview fragment: one or more related ideas/viewpoints that can (and often do) serve as a component or flavor in a complete worldview held by some specific individual. The "fragment" term is not intended to be a subtle insult, but to accurately reflect the reality that the fragment is 1) not necessarily an actual, comprehensive worldview, and 2) could likely coexist with a variety of other fragments within some individual's worldview. A puzzle piece isn't worthless because it's a puzzle piece.

Few habits are more tiresome than relating every subject to politics. I'm fine with people expressing their political opinions, especially when politics is the topic under discussion. But it bothers me that some seem so steeped and invested in a worldview in which a ruthless battle is constantly raging: "It's us versus them! We're under siege! If you talk like that, then you must be one of them! How dare you question that and consider yourself one of us!"

More in general, I bristle when people appear to believe that politics and (sub-)culture and religion and morality must be intermixed and interdependent. It's ignorant and/or incurious to not ever consider that the pieces could fit together in myriad combinations. It leads to assumptions such as, "If you make moral decision X then your politics must be Y", or "If your politics is Q then your culture must be Z." People who seem similar on one dimension could hold much different opinions in the second, and people who seem dissimilar could agree on many things.

The basic problem in equating personal characteristics that are only indirectly related is that it leads to stereotypes and preconceptions, which are more likely to divide people and incite hate than to unite people and promote love. When a worldview separates people by a prevailing animosity, political or otherwise, there's little hope for reconciliation. Demonizing is demons' work.

Worldview Fragment: motivational verity

Worldview fragment: one or more related ideas/viewpoints that can (and often do) serve as a component or flavor in a complete worldview held by some specific individual. The "fragment" term is not intended to be a subtle insult, but to accurately reflect the reality that the fragment is 1) not necessarily an actual, comprehensive worldview, and 2) could likely coexist with a variety of other fragments within some individual's worldview. A puzzle piece isn't worthless because it's a puzzle piece.

"Motivational verity" is the quality of discovering, understanding, and acknowledging one's own real motivations ("verity" originating from a thesaurus consultation on my part). As with the other worldview fragments, this isn't specific to Christianity. Unlike most of the rest, it's beneficial. Without motivational verity, a Christian is either acting without full knowledge or despite what knowledge he or she has. It contributes to charges of hypocrisy by others (which might lead to a movie exhibiting the effect for humor's sake).

Since a lack of motivational verity is partially responsible for many unfavorable outcomes, the methodical Christian shall try to increase his or hers. Although the primary and indispensable ingredient is penitent earnestness (i.e. just like any other lasting personal change one must sincerely want it and work for it), here are some suggestions and factors to consider.

• Unflinching confrontation. Much has been said and written about denial and avoidance. Motivational verity can't get far if the truth isn't perceived as is, regardless of desirability. What this implies is that possible motivations aren't disqualified without good reason. "Is it possible that I am motivated by..." Furthermore, someone should strive to not overemphasize the pleasant possibilities. "I feel like I might be doing this for personal glory, but anyways I do care, too..."
• Perceptual bias by self-concept. This factor is more subtle than outright denial or purposeful ignorance. The evidence, scientific and anecdotal alike, points to the influence of perceptual biases. In short, people tend to perceive/interpret relative to their expectations. They can see patterns where none exist and miss patterns that are obvious to a different individual. Self-concept is a strong bias. "Lately I've been getting angry about trivia. It doesn't reflect a worrying trend in my attitude; after all, I'm facing stressors G and H." "I deeply wish I could volunteer, but my schedule is so full and I can't clear it, especially my golf time, which is really a ministry to my non-Christian friends, right?" The bias is tricky to eliminate because it's invisible by nature. However, a productive route is to work backward from self-concept to potential biases. Probe the questions, "Given that my self-concept is ______ , how would I (or anyone similar) be most likely to interpret _____ so it fits? Of the interpretations available, are mine precisely those that would disturb my self-concept the least?"
  
• Review. The regular review of one's behavior and motivations can take a variety of forms: a journal, a free-ranging prayer session before sleeping, a comparison to a Bible reading. The point is collecting and synthesizing the minutiae to produce a timely and consistent overall perspective, instead of going about the task in an erratic, ad-hoc search for indications of a precooked conclusion. Don't "cherry-pick" the past month for proofs of developing virtue. Do "rewind" the day, impartially holding each significant moment to the glaring light and confessing or rejoicing in it. Guilt for confessed and repented sin is not the goal of this practice; a sensible way of measuring progress is!
  

The remaining three entail dangers and caveats. These require caution and care in usage.

• Others' opinions. Others' viewpoints aren't framed by the same prejudices as the subject, so their opinions can be immensely valuable for breaking through preconceptions. Yet they have their own set of prejudices, they differ greatly in the capability to correctly discern, and the most empathetic of observers could be as wrong about the subject's motivations as the subject. In addition, strictly speaking Christians aren't obligated to seek approval of their motivations by other Christians. Their inability to surely know the motivations behind an action is one important reason why they aren't (and can't be) the final judges. Finally, due to someone's motivations being a highly personal, private topic, trust and compassion are vital to prevent an incendiary result that can wreck weak relationships, leaving everyone worse off. Of course, an opinion of someone's motivations perhaps shouldn't be expressed at all unless it is supported by a range of identifiable examples that can be marshalled in response to the fair follow-up question "Why do you think that's what makes me tick?"
  
• Prioritization of action over statements. Commonly known as "talk is cheap", this is the strategy of measuring motivations through placing much more weight on deeds than on claims. In terms of a simplistic bluntness that borders on a vulgar degree of insensitivity, "results not excuses". If someone planned or merely intended to _____, but didn't, the failure to act may be a sign that the related motivations need adjustment and someone's awareness of his or her actual motivations is suspect. Piercing examination is necessary; there may be perfectly good reasons why someone didn't act, but on the other hand the inaction may have been a victory of ignoble motivations that need to be broken and given over to God. (In-)Consistency is a marker to watch. One broken promise is less symptomatic of hypothetical motivational problems than a promise broken so often its very existence is reasonably doubtful. The danger of correlating motivations so closely to actions is that it potentially binds someone to a "Law" that isn't mandatory, with accompanying discouragement and despair - better to try and do a little rather than give up completely after trying and not doing a lot. The questions are deceptively straightforward: "If you believe that your motivations are becoming more godly, are your actions also becoming more godly, whatever that means for you? If your actions aren't, then isn't that just cause to pause and question your belief in your changing motivations?"
  
• Immediate reactions and free associations. The most humbling and/or devastating step of all to achieve motivational verity is noting the raw, unembellished, unfiltered motivations that occur effortlessly in the face of anything. The Christian one isn't guaranteed to come first. Or second, third, fourth... An individual who acts Christian, on occasion, in a specialized context, isn't likely to have his or her proud beliefs about personal motivations to be confirmed in this way. Moreover, worrying about a lack of confirmation here is probably counterproductive, as it won't change through "willpower". It's more likely to happen over time, a side effect of old habits and ways of thinking replaced by new, "mind renewal". I've heard cases of people's former desires extinguishing and never returning, but it's not typical.
  

I can evision a reply to the preceding: "The quest for motivational verity seems to be a probing intrusion on my privacy, autonomy, and comfort. As an alternative, why couldn't I compile a to-do list of Christian-y stuff, and select items as I wish?" And someone could, and many do. Though I'd appreciate them not calling Jesus "Lord" or claiming divine forgiveness without repentance and rebirth.

Worldview Fragment: faith as its own justification

Worldview fragment: one or more related ideas/viewpoints that can (and often do) serve as a component or flavor in a complete worldview held by some specific individual. The "fragment" term is not intended to be a subtle insult, but to accurately reflect the reality that the fragment is 1) not necessarily an actual, comprehensive worldview, and 2) could likely coexist with a variety of other fragments within some individual's worldview. A puzzle piece isn't worthless because it's a puzzle piece.

Before proceeding, the definition of "faith" in this worldview fragment must be clarified, because "faith" has many rich meanings, some of which have occupied Christian thinkers for years. In this fragment, however, the meaning of "faith" is uncomplicated. A quote from Miracle on 34th Street, a movie which is teeming over with this worldview fragment, expresses it well:

Faith is believing when common sense tells you not to. Don't you see? It's not just Kris that's on trial, it's everything he stands for. It's kindness and joy and love and all the other intangibles.

Then faith, according to this fragment, is the opposite of reason. It's the opposite of sensory experience. It's the opposite of systematic inquiry. It's belief grounded in nothing. It's commitment to a disembodied idea. It's a mental leap into a void. It's warping something tangible to better fit something intangible.

In short, faith is the broad category of thought that disregards the accepted standards of evidential truth, epitomized by scientific methods and procedures. An editorial like "Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus" advances its suppositions about Santa Claus, fairies, the unknown, the unseen, the sublime, and a raft of Platonic Ideals explicitly NOT on the basis of actual verification but on the observation that the effect of those beliefs is good--in fact, the effect of life being worthwhile! A top theme of Miracle on 34th Street is the same mismatch or dichotomy, personified by the conflicts between Fred Gailey and Doris Walker, and it comes to a similar conclusion:

Look Doris, someday you're going to find that your way of facing this realistic world just doesn't work. And when you do, don't overlook those lovely intangibles. You'll discover those are the only things that are worthwhile.

In other words, everything real (i.e., tangible) is determined by observation and experimentation, but everything that matters most is believable solely by furiously shutting one's eyes against the exact same standards and pretending. Faith is pretending pretty things, not seeing. Is it any wonder that "people of faith" (a fascinating label in itself) don't feel flattered when "people of science" (another fascinating label) interview them, debate them, or portray them like this? Some people will say they "wish they could believe like you do". If anyone wants a prime example of damning with faint praise, that would be it. "I wish I held to your beliefs just as I wish I held to other fictional beliefs, like Santa Claus and fairies and objective, transcendent morality."

Obviously, the problem here is not the mere defense of the existence of and need for love, joy, hope, compassion, imagination, etc. Christianity asserts and defends the same! The problem lies in acknowledging the existence of the dilemma and therefore mounting a defense at all. For Christians (and others), "leap of 'faith' " is not an apt description of the way they think. God exists and is good. Humanity has value not because we say it does nor because we have highly-advanced herd-animal empathy for one another's genes, but because God created humanity to exhibit a divine spiritual spark. Faith no longer has to be its own justification, as a wish-fulfillment escape hatch from soul-crushing reality. Rather, faith is a Christian virtue, the strength-giving virtue of confidently trusting God in all of life's details.

Some would have us think that, in a universe whose mysteries are not mysterious and whose purpose is nonexistent, the only path to meaning is elaborate fantasies that must be taken on "faith". (Creatively clever writers have noticed that even stories containing blatantly unrealistic, perhaps nonsensical, elements can avoid the obvious question "Doesn't this mean that the story presumes the existence of the supernatural, and therefore a supernatural Source, God?" simply by explicitly or implicitly framing those elements in the "have faith, not questions or truth" mode of illusionists.) That faith is not Christianity. It's not why Christ died. The intangibles are actually tangibles. Good is backed by Someone, while Evil is rebellion against Him.

Worldview Fragment: cultural accommodation through appeasement

Worldview fragment: one or more related ideas/viewpoints that can (and often do) serve as a component or flavor in a complete worldview held by some specific individual. The "fragment" term is not intended to be a subtle insult, but to accurately reflect the reality that the fragment is 1) not necessarily an actual, comprehensive worldview, and 2) could likely coexist with a variety of other fragments within some individual's worldview. A puzzle piece isn't worthless because it's a puzzle piece.

The basic, introductory outline of Christianity is simple, and people often express it as a handful of steps or tenets. It's also highly adaptable. One of the factors of its longevity and ubiquity is the effective repackaging people have done to extend the Gospel to those who deeply need it yet don't or can't comprehend their own need because the unpackaged form of it seems irrelevant. The adjective "Christianized" arose for good reason. A top theme of Acts is the spreading of Christianity, which was founded by God in the guise of a Jew, from one people group to other, drastically-different people groups. This long and distinguished tradition could be referred to as cultural accommodation because it consists of taking the whole Gospel and integrating or transplanting it into a previously foreign culture.

Any honest Christian will tell you that this integration is never perfect nor easy. However, for Christians the essential mismatch between Christianity and culture does have a straightforward explanation: culture comes from people, while Christianity comes from God. The sinful components of a culture don't and shouldn't mix well with the holiness components of Christianity. Plainly, just as some parts of the presentation of Christianity are subject to cultural accommodation, some parts of the accommodated culture are subject to rejection by Christianity. To use the Bible's metaphors, the salt must keep being salty to be useful; Christianity must have an observable, statistical effect on Christians (regardless of culture) to be Christianity.

In contrast, some well-meaning people who have a commendable level of enthusiasm for the Lost fall into the error of "solving" the real conflict of ideas between Christianity and culture by taking cultural accommodation to such an extreme that Christianity ceases to be Christianity in any meaningful and/or significant sense. When a participant in a conflict concedes too much for the sake of peace, this is appeasement. Christian appeasers could operate in a variety of different ways; boiled down to the most fundamental form these are recanting or abandoning, if not in so many words, the Apostles' Creed, Nicene Creed, or the reliability of the Bible.

Of course, the appeasement can be so subtle that it escapes notice. Christian appeasers sound a lot like other Christians. They may also agree on many points. A Christian appeaser might not have started out that way, and might yet stop jettisoning the central concepts of Christianity in response to culture. (He or she could have drifted into becoming an appeaser simply out of unreflective exposure to culture.) Here and now, some of the Christian concepts commonly sacrificed on an individual or group basis to appease culture are:

• Truth. As courage is a basic ingredient of other virtues, the claim to truth is a basic ingredient of authentic Christian beliefs. To put it bluntly (in a definition philosophers will mock you for), truth is "all statements which correspond to reality". True Christianity is more than a "metanarrative", a "religion", a "belief system", or a "doctrine". It is. God isn't an analogy, a label for some inborn archetype, or a manifestation of the Divine Oneness of Being. God is. If a culture or someone inhabiting that culture doesn't believe in this kind of truth, particularly applied to the supernatural realm, then Christianity is so much nonsense and wasted energy--although it would still be excellent inspirational fiction.
• Sin/guilt. Morality confronts each individual with two facts: 1) some actions should be done while some actions should not be done, 2) on a more or less daily basis he or she doesn't do what he or she should and/or he or she does what he or she shouldn't. Christianity comprehensively addresses those two facts, and in fact is centered on them: the causes, the effects, the temporary cure, the ultimate cure, etc. Thus, each Christian believer must start out by recognizing that he or she is a sinner--an EVIL person. Isn't this an awful marketing challenge? Appeasers relinquish sin and divine judgment in favor of a self-improvement program whose net result is blessings for now and forever. When Christians (verbally) "convert" with the understanding that sin is just "the reallllly bad stuff I do occasionally", not "the despicable condition of my soul, fully deserving eternal punishment apart from mercy", why should onlookers be surprised that this appeasing version of Christianity leads to ineffective and hypocritical "Christians"?
• Hell. Christian appeasement to culture is almost as old as Christianity. And Hell is likely among both the oldest and most consistent victims of appeasement. "I can't believe in a good God who could send people to Hell." Hell's overwhelming unattractiveness makes that statement overwhelmingly attractive. Yet it also happens to be an oddly childish statement refuted by elementary points. 1) How could Good be Good and tolerate Evil indefinitely? 2) How could Heaven be Heaven if Evil is there? 3) If God's forgiveness really is that cheap, why did Jesus come and die? 4) Do the damned want to be with God (obeying, worshiping) anyway? 5) Most obviously, God HAS provided a freely-offered and fully-functioning escape from Hell--how is He therefore contradicting His "goodness credentials"?
  
• Blood. The Bible has plenty of sex and violence, which is a point people relish using against Christians when they actively campaign to restrict the distribution of prurient and/or violent media. (What really makes specific media unacceptable is the glorification and incitement of sex and violence--by portraying the desirable aspects while not portraying the real-world devastating consequences.) Christians can take some solace in rationalizing that much of it, and certainly the more disagreeable portions like slaughters and affairs, is pre-Christ. However, the topic of blood cannot be similarly avoided (if you don't like the word "blood", don't read Hebrews!). Throughout the Bible, blood is the atonement for sin. Hence the Christian songs which rhapsodize about Christ's blood, for it's how sinners can be reunited to God. And the ritual of Holy Communion, which seems to have cannibalistic overtones to people who don't grasp the concept and symbolism. Blood is still another concept which underscores the seriousness of Christianity (but that seriousness is coupled to the joy and hope of forgiveness, new life of repentance, and the Spirit). To appease a culture by denying blood's importance in Christianity is to sever ties to one of the long-standing pillars of historical understanding.
  

Christianity's full message can take many forms for the sake of cultural accommodation, but a form that smooths over all culture conflict by excising truth, sin, Hell, or blood isn't Christianity. It may act as a pleasant cultural institution, but not a compelling, transforming influence.

Worldview Fragment: restriction is freedom

Worldview fragment: one or more related ideas/viewpoints that can (and often do) serve as a component or flavor in a complete worldview held by some specific individual. The "fragment" term is not intended to be a subtle insult, but to accurately reflect the reality that the fragment is 1) not necessarily an actual, comprehensive worldview, and 2) could likely coexist with a variety of other fragments within some individual's worldview. A puzzle piece isn't worthless because it's a puzzle piece.

All of the worldview fragments covered up until this one enjoy current (really perennial) popularity, but are also misleading or unbalanced in sometimes-subtle ways. Each fragment is commonly accepted by people who have nothing to do with Christianity. However, these fragments can sometimes confuse Christians who have heedlessly picked them up...or who simply haven't heard counterbalancing truths.

The worldview fragment "restriction is freedom" is different. It isn't popular, and least of all among the anti-religious. Its downfall isn't in being enticing yet somewhat false, but in being disconcerting yet somewhat true. Some practices and branches of Christianity have deeply embraced this fragment, while others "theoretically" agree with it but typically ignore it. Like the other fragments, it has been mixed with many compatible worldviews beside Christianity. And people and cultures have discovered it more or less independently of Christianity.

"Restriction is freedom" is a short name for the tricky belief that behavioral restrictions can lead to freedom from a detrimental influence. What makes it tricky is the juxtaposition of opposite concepts. On first hearing, it sounds nonsensical, like stating greater heat will cool someone off. How can someone claim to gain freedom by allowing less?

The solution to the contradiction is apparent after admitting the ultimate freedom of all people, free will to make significant decisions, is afflicted by a multitude of bondage-inducing interferences. Personal freedom is simultaneously inviolate and continually buffeted. The most extreme case is addiction, in which someone faces pains of withdrawal that would stoop just short of making the decision for him or her. The least extreme case is a whim or hunch, which vanish when brushed aside or not acted upon.

It's singularly foolish (or, if you prefer, supremely bold) to try to live consistently without recognizing and manipulating the extent of the opposing forces. The person who seriously wants to pursue a goal should observe the interconnectedness of decisions. One shaky, not even arguably evil, decision can lead to a situation that presents a genuine good-and-evil dilemma. Christianity admonishes people to flee temptation. Some of the "hard", "unreasonable" stances some Christians assume on certain activities may be due to the attempt to preemptively avoid opportunities to sin. Naturally, those Christians who can honestly, before God and self, claim total mastery/freedom over the related temptation(s), don't need to do so. To put this into non-Christian terms, a dieter shouldn't be surrounded by no-no foods, and a recovering alcoholic shouldn't be surrounded by problem drinkers. Willpower, especially supplemented by the Holy Spirit, is great, but hardly infallible. When it's weak from lack of practice or has a dismal record in one specific area, it shouldn't be counted on.

Freedom through restriction is beneficial for preventing tough settings, but it is a still more important weapon for breaking shackles that can't be outran: the inner life, with its lusts and compulsions. Many of these desires and drives are natural, and when exercised in the proper outlets could be considered neutral or holy. Once redirected into perversions or overindulged, however, the quality of innocence is gone: all that's left is a clinging urge to do wrong. At that point, someone is at civil war within him- or herself. The situation is serious. For Christians, who believe entanglement in sin produces spiritual death, the situation is literally deadly. Seeking out God, support of others, a renewed commitment to directing the impulse properly, and thoughtful contemplation/refocusing in the midst of the struggle will all be helpful.

Freedom through restriction is a more drastic technique. It entails foregoing not only unlawful gratification, but also lawful gratification, within well-defined limits. By doing this, greater control and strength are asserted. Power is restored to the person's soul, as the very fuel and habit of the specific lust is denied. Failure in carrying out the rule of restriction is treated similar to an actual sin, though not bearing the same weight of guilt: confession, pondering on the failure's root, and repentance. The goal is to train oneself to rely more fully on God during the time of restriction, and to put the problem into adjusted perspective. Interestingly, restricting the action of one inner weakness can lead to increased freedom from other inner weaknesses too. This is one explanation for the importance many Christians have placed on fasting, whether during Lent or in more frequent intervals.

As mentioned earlier, Christianity is not alone in its use of the "restriction is freedom" worldview fragment. Self-denial as a means to self-control is widely applicable. Although it may seem ridiculous in a culture whose attention is riveted on pursuit of pleasure (no matter the time or place of that culture), it in fact makes a lot of good sense.

Worldview Fragment: middling morality

Worldview fragment: one or more related ideas/viewpoints that can (and often do) serve as a component or flavor in a complete worldview held by some specific individual. The "fragment" term is not intended to be a subtle insult, but to accurately reflect the reality that the fragment is 1) not necessarily an actual, comprehensive worldview, and 2) could likely coexist with a variety of other fragments within some individual's worldview. A puzzle piece isn't worthless because it's a puzzle piece.

The entry on False Amorality made the point that almost everyone has some morality, no matter how slight, exotic, or implicit. This statement will be met with zero shock both by practicing Christians and by anyone who vocally supports opposite ideas. However, it will be ignored or puzzled-over by the swath of people who see themselves not only as separate from the Christian or anti-Christian sides, but separate from any and all "inflexible, simplistic, dogmatic" sides. That is if they can be prevailed upon to (care enough to) express an opinion at all. They may "beg the question morally" when faced with a decision, refusing to trouble themselves with the underlying principles. When pressed, they will appeal to no moral authority beyond common-sense and personal conscience, or just say that everyone in the world should be respectful and nice to each other.

"Respectful" and "nice" are altogether worthier virtues than usually acknowledged, but even the actions and attitudes that these two entail aren't the same to all people. Is being "nice" just not hurting others intentionally, or is it actively helping them? What precise degree of sacrifice, whether time or money or effort, does "nice" demarcate? Similar questions plague "respectful". Is it respectful to always be formal until given permission otherwise, or to be informal and transparent so others feel welcome and at ease? How respectful must one be to one's opponents, and how should it be expressed? Moreover, how does one answer the charge of subcultures and counter-cultures, that insincere niceness and respectfulness are phony, even hypocritical?

"Common-sense" morality generally avoids extremes, because common-sense refers to the knowledge people have learned out of habitual exposure to everyday life and society. Unless someone has been habitually exposed to extreme morality, naturally they won't include it in common-sense. But it's also true that the common-sense morality absorbed by a spoiled rich person probably differs from the common-sense morality absorbed by a middle-class person, and both probably differ from the common-sense morality absorbed by a desperately-poor person. Common-sense morality varies by culture too. Each culture has its own moral blindnesses.

In the same way, an individual's common-sense will contain contradictory moral concepts as a result of the many shades of experiences which have shaped the individual over time. The opposite influences will press him or her to approach a tipsy middle ground of morality, a middling morality. This middle ground is characterized by someone believing in something, but only under certain conditions. The conditions enable him or her to simultaneously pick up moral notions from drastically different perspectives yet expect to combine them.

Middling morality is the expected outcome of someone drifting through a sea of ideas but clinging to none in the attempt to be "balanced" and "good enough". The prevalence of middling morality is in large part also what makes its content feel acceptable--just don't rock the boat, and everyone will get along swimmingly. Middling morality's top goal is to lead its practitioner down the road of greatest comfort. To determine what important causes to work on, what social ills to remedy, all one must do is select the ones that are most highly publicized and trendy. The point at which to apply the brakes to doing good is the point of great inconvenience or discomfort. Then ward off guilt by saying that "extreme" goodness is for the "saints" of the world (those freaks!). Similar tactics hold for fun activities: only weirdos would try to fool themselves into thinking through the wisdom of an activity instead of the pleasure it elicits. Doubly so for "immoral" activities that don't hurt anyone.

People who live by middling morality are fond of using hypocrisy as a shield against anyone who has professed a real commitment to living morally. "You say you're living a Good Life? What about this human shortcoming? Looks like it'd be more honest if you lived like me." In actuality, this charge of hypocrisy is empty, because it isn't backed by more than a cardboard cutout of moral superiority. It's better to set a high standard and fail, then to take the approach of middling morality, in which sincere goodness isn't even claimed and attempted. Middling morality is ordinary. It's prone to fads. It barely affects the world (or planet, if you prefer) at all because no deep sacrifice is involved. Middling morality's goodness, as well as its badness, is the true phony. Charges of hypocrisy are laughable from someone who plays at morality.

Worldview Fragment: just be yourself

Worldview fragment: one or more related ideas/viewpoints that can (and often do) serve as a component or flavor in a complete worldview held by some specific individual. The "fragment" term is not intended to be a subtle insult, but to accurately reflect the reality that the fragment is 1) not necessarily an actual, comprehensive worldview, and 2) could likely coexist with a variety of other fragments within some individual's worldview. A puzzle piece isn't worthless because it's a puzzle piece.

The "just be yourself" worldview fragment is defined as the belief that "each unique individual can have no greater ambition than to be and do what comes most naturally to him or her". Like other fragments, it's correct about some things but is not an example of unqualified truth.

Each individual is precious and rare, is worthy of a chance, and has a distinct set of talents. Christianity contradicts none of those assertions. Jesus mixed with all layers of society, particularly the "worthless scum". The complete non-exclusivity of the Gospel (subject to academic arguments about "predestined elect", but leave that aside for the moment) is implicit in the idea of the Great Commission, confirmed by events/councils in Acts, and preceded by Jesus' merciful interactions with Gentiles. The wide range of spiritual fruits and virtues, along with the Bible passages about the importance of unity among the diversity of the Body of Christ (the Church), illustrate the value of what only each individual can bring to the whole.

On the other hand, Christianity without earnest repentance and sincere shame for sin is not Christianity. Loving oneself, and everything about oneself, is a questionable ideal which is actually loathed in practice. Who hasn't wished for vain, arrogant snobs to receive their comeuppance? How often is someone blinded to his or her own weaknesses by blind self-love? The greatest tragedy is when someone closely identifies with his or her sin, thereby loving it like a body part or "pet".

Of course, he or she is somewhat right in that belief, since Christianity teaches that sin is natural for people. Someone who sins "naturally" still sins. A "natural" sin may be committed with relatively purer intentions than a "premeditated and consciously-chosen" sin, but the act remains the sick product of a sick being. Moreover, the more "natural" sins someone commits, the greater the evidence someone is naturally twisted. In short, to "just be yourself" when faced with a decision may not be an innocent proposition (although it may be).

Not "just being yourself" when faced with a decision could seem ridiculous to those who believe in a companion worldview fragment, "people can't change". And once again, even such a minor fragment is partially helpful and partially misleading. It's more accurate to claim "people can change, but change is hard". Many fail to change simply because they don't try enough. Then they succeed for a while, but don't sustain the change because they fail to be vigilant against the forces (within and without) that originally kept the old self/behavior so consistent. Drastic, lasting change is an easy dream but a hard endeavor. The Good News, for the Christian who really is trying, is the forgiveness offered to the confessor--forgiveness not granted in order for the sinner to sin again but granted in order for the contrite to begin anew (again).

Yet another objection arises. If Christians are trying so hard to change themselves into a group that acts uniformly, thinks uniformly, feels uniformly, then won't the result be a boring, homogenized mass of lukewarm mush? It's an honest question with several answers. For one thing, the parts of themselves that people leave behind aren't any good. Any good qualities of those parts stick around, in greater purity, due to not being weighed-down or held-back by dross. As all the members learn how to live harmoniously, they're enabled to form a stronger, better-functioning society, a society in which everyone can "be themselves" without worry because it is safe and caring. Perhaps the best response to the charge of boring uniformity is the irresistible uniqueness etched into a soul. One person can't be hammered and shaped into another, or at least not by breaking one of them. All are imperfect; when made perfect, perfection will shine in a specialized, finite way through any one of them.

Worldview Fragment: life without rules

Worldview fragment: one or more related ideas/viewpoints that can (and often do) serve as a component or flavor in a complete worldview held by some specific individual. The "fragment" term is not intended to be a subtle insult, but to accurately reflect the reality that the fragment is 1) not necessarily an actual, comprehensive worldview, and 2) could likely coexist with a variety of other fragments within some individual's worldview. A puzzle piece isn't worthless because it's a puzzle piece.

The "life without rules" worldview fragment can be summarized, if not concisely, as follows: "Living according to a set of rules or customs only produces an elaborate fantasy existence in which real humanity is all but absent." Some punchier statements in the same vein are: "rules are meant to be broken", "show me a rule and I'll show you a hypocrite", "have fun by ignoring the rules for once", "rules are for tools or dupes", "might makes right", "rules are dead so following them makes one dead".

Here are first some positive aspects to this worldview fragment:

• Life is complicated. Rules will necessarily be insufficient to cover all situations. Therefore, it's beneficial to realize that rules are not enough, but principles nevertheless enable one to confront new decisions. This is unavoidably true within Christianity. The Bible is old. It was originally written to people who lived much differently than those in the present. Christians who attempt to live out every exact word of the Bible, while having good intentions, are in my opinion taking on the unneeded burden of preserving a nonexistent past (a past with its own set of downsides). Rules are limited, so rules aren't everything.
• A central Christian doctrine is the human inability to be holy apart from God. Rules come after salvation. Once again, mere rules aren't sufficient. In fact, in Jesus' teaching He replaced the rules regulating actions with still-harder rules regulating attitudes and thoughts! By this He acknowledged the insufficiency of (those) rules.
• Speaking frankly, some rules truly are pointless and ridiculous. Judging objectively whether a rule has a good reason, as well as when an exception is called for, is a mark of maturity. Notice that saying "Rule 4c is not applicable right now because of _____" is still far different from saying "Rule 4c is never applicable because rules are never applicable".

As usual, the principal problem of this worldview fragment lies in how it has been applied, as expressed in the set of related statements above. It is prone to spreading certain inaccuracies:

• To be generally dismissive toward rules is to misunderstand the general purpose of rules, which is enhancing life. When someone knows that a particular action is dangerous or at the very least has undesirable consequences, the ethical response is to create a rule forbidding it. On the other hand, if a particular action leads to a greater good, the ethical response is to create a rule mandating it. Serving customers in the order of arrival is a good rule to promote timely, fair service all around. An alternative, such as serving whichever customer successfully tackles the others to the floor, would not be as good.
• Rules may feel like the enemy of passion or desire, because rules can stifle. The error is in not acknowledging the value of this stifling effect in producing personal freedom. Freedom is choosing what will be, so someone who always listens to desire isn't as free as he or she may claim. Merely consenting to desire at every turn is a subtle bondage in which desire is one's master. Christians (and other myriad belief systems) have recommended the discipline of fasting as a great aid in this context. Although I don't think fasting regularly is necessary, I trust those who report that fasting is invaluable from time to time.
• Moderation's "dirty little secret" is how it can increase enjoyment of desire. Indulgence without moderation sooner or later is self-defeating. Addicts of any stripe know this intimately. As movie critics point out, there is nothing as tedious as nonstop action. A little modesty goes a long way. Binges can dull experience and also fatigue the person who's binging. To take a common example, consider fire. Fire is a powerful tool for light and warmth. Too much (uncontrolled) fire is a tool for destruction.
  
• The saddest element of this worldview fragment is the tendency for its disregard for rules to ripple into a disrespect for the mental faculties connected with rules. That is, someone who subscribes to the "rules are a prison" belief is more likely to elevate the importance of his or her "gut" over rational judgment. Does anyone doubt what disasters could result? For some decisions, the difference may not matter much. Yet the compulsive rule-breaker, whose insistence on "living free by shooting from the hip" leads him or her to throw caution away, sooner or later may discover the harshness of some of reality's rules. Risks are part of life, but stupid risks should not be. Some personalities naturally err on the side of overconfidence, while some naturally err on the side of fearfulness. Neither error is worse than the other, although people with a dramatic flair will insist that taking stupid risks is better than taking no risks.

The thrill people experience from ignoring rules is really the thrill of living dangerously. "Look at me! I'm disobeying a rule. I wonder what could happen?" The thrill people experience from living "outside the lines" is really the thrill of being cut off from meaning, purpose, authority, and responsibility. This thrill speaks to the human ambition to be "like God", to be beyond good and evil. Unfortunately, it also happens to be absurd. God isn't beyond good and evil either. Moreover, life is dangerously thrilling on its own. All one must do is seek it out. The true "elaborate fantasy existence" consists of smashing or ignoring rules in order to pretend the Good needs the Bad to be interesting.

Worldview Fragment: All you need is love

Worldview fragment: one or more related ideas/viewpoints that can (and often do) serve as a component or flavor in a complete worldview held by some specific individual. The "fragment" term is not intended to be a subtle insult, but to accurately reflect the reality that the fragment is 1) not necessarily an actual, comprehensive worldview, and 2) could likely coexist with a variety of other fragments within some individual's worldview. A puzzle piece isn't worthless because it's a puzzle piece.

The worldview fragment I have named "all you need is love" could be precisely summed up as "affection, compassion, appreciation, and goodwill are sufficient to achieve lasting utopia". Who could argue with this? What past recipient of such kind feelings would doubt their effectiveness? How many people have been transformed thereby?

Let me state immediately that love is a huge part of Christianity, too, although as I (I'm an analytical male, by the way) understand it, Christian love is less about feelings than about action: love is expressed by doing what is best for the object. I have the impression that love is the lifeblood, the heart-and-soul of Christian life. As the Bible reiterates, love is the most important and desireable quality or virtue one should pursue, but love in this sense is much more than a feeling. The array of possible meanings denoted by love can make communication tricky, which is why I grasped about for four alternative words to use in the definition in the previous paragraph. For convenience I will use the acronym ACAG to reference those words, affection, compassion, appreciation, goodwill.

All that having been said, the worldview fragment "all you need is love", as defined above, is incorrect:

• One difficulty is that ACAG are simply not constants. When someone who is close, whether emotionally or even just physically, lashes out for the flimsiest reason(s), ACAG tend to evaporate. In those moments, self-control and a determination to preserve the relationship's peace--not ACAG--must act as substitutes.
• Other problems can arise when ACAG are directed more strongly at one party than another, because a bias or preference is the natural result. If an argument or other need for mediation occurs, neutrality won't be present out of ACAG (if both claim to be the "victim", isn't it hard not to side with whichever party "deserves" more consideration or has "earned" more sympathy?). An obvious retort is that ACAG must be directed at all people equally to be any good, but the honest shall readily confess to feeling more benevolent toward the victim of an unprovoked attack than toward the aggressor, to purposely take an extreme example.
• Wise folks have observed the close connection between the emotions of love and hate. (The opposite of love is not hate but indifference.) Love and hate have similar physical manifestations, can turn into each other with alarming ease, etc. Lovers turning into angry maniacs is one of the most prevalent ways of creating drama in any medium. In a love triangle, "love" may be the sole cause of the hostility ("betrayed by my best friend and my girl!"). The point is that the two A's of ACAG, affection and appreciation, when left unrestrained, can transmute into the most awful of passions.
• On what could be thought of as the other end of the spectrum, mere ACAG are not much help in the endless examples of the minute details of existence. Newlyweds will discover this quite soon after the wedding, if not during the wedding's planning stage. For instance, what US state will one live in? Someone can't be in two distinct places simultaneously, no matter how much ACAG someone has. Take a smaller example. What color should a wall be? Assuming that a combination of colors on the same wall is not a possibility (probably due to being too garish), the wall can only be one or the other, regardless of how much ACAG someone has. Tragically speaking, if "all you need is love", more marriages would last longer.
  

ACAG are great, in Christians or anyone else. However, Christianity is more than ACAG and the associated Christmas carols. It has to be, if it claims to be a workable solution to the Human Condition, and if it claims to have a (feasible) heaven. A Christian whose Christianity does not go beyond ACAG should really drop his or her pretense to the label--if ACAG was all Jesus had to carry out to save the world, why did He bother with that business about repentance and the cross?

Pursuit of Happiness as Worldview Fragment

This blog's intent is to throw some light onto the fault line(s) between Christianity and current U.S. culture. While the title "Christianity Unbowed" correctly indicates that the blog's focus is on the Christian side of the line(s), I think looking at the other, more fashionable side makes sense from time to time, if only to contrast the Christian side.

Of course, just as the Christian side is really a diverse collection of ideas that happen to share a strong connecting thread, so with the non-Christian side. A non-Christian viewpoint under analysis is therefore more accurately described as a worldview fragment than a definite and explicit worldview. Calling a viewpoint a "fragment" is not a subtle insult but a suitable label for a set of ideas that can (and often do) serve as a component or flavor in a complete worldview held by some specific individual. Moreover, since people commonly believe in an implicit set of ideas (living an "unexamined life" and all that), those implicit ideas don't claim to be more than fragments anyway. Also, a set of ideas may be logically or conceptually compatible with any number of complete worldviews, which again points to that set constituting a worldview fragment.

The Pursuit of Happiness is a worldview fragment defined as "the goal of human existence is the pursuit or maximization of happiness". This worldview fragment has undeniable popularity and lack of controversy. In politics in any democracy, the Pursuit of Happiness is an excellent platform to assure some votes, when promising it to at least a majority. On a personal level, nothing could be more natural than seeking pleasure and avoiding pain; animals do it.

Yet the Pursuit of Happiness has an easy application beyond the personal level, too: if the goal is to increase all happiness (of sentients), any personal decision that would lessen someone else's happiness level is wrong. The principle is then "do whatever you like to pursue happiness, on the condition that those actions don't make anyone else unhappy". Therefore the Pursuit of Happiness tells us that the ultimate moral question for a society to ask is whether a personal action hurts anyone; if so, disallow it, if not, ignore it so the personal Pursuit can continue without interference. What could be easier?

I'm not discussing this worldview fragment to discredit it, but to relate it to Christianity. Here are some areas to consider.

• One needn't read too far into the Bible to realize that the goal of existence is not defined by each person's pursuit of happiness. Rather, the goal of existence is defined by the Creator of existence, who knows what is best. And this goal...
• ...is not necessarily happiness as people imagine it to be. Paradise was people living in perfect harmony with God, their own natural drives, other people, and their surroundings. Without that paradise of harmony intact to serve as a guide and support, people have proceeded to have an incredible array of erroneous ideas about everything, including what real happiness is. Confessing one's errors is the essence of humility. God is good. One statement I have read is the suggestion that human-defined happiness is in actuality aiming too low.
  
• The Bible's ideas about community may seem strange, too. Individualism and independence are highly cherished ideals/rights for protecting citizens from the excesses of government, but we must also acknowledge the collective and dependent nature of humanity. This doesn't stop with the tribes and kingdoms of the Old Testament but continues into the New Testament, when Jesus declares the arrival of the "kingdom of heaven" and the group of Christians takes on the name "Body of Christ". As a result, the boundary line between public and private Christian holiness is blurry. In this context, the notion of my Pursuit of Happiness not affecting someone else's Pursuit of Happiness (for good or bad) is nonsensical.