a raspberry smoothie defeats existentialism every time

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

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

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

God is not reliable

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

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

For clarity, I shall enumerate.

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

I believe that honest Christians have no choice but to reject the notion that God is reliable. Having rejected the notion, they shouldn't proclaim it. There are a number of plausible reasons and theories for why God is perfect and powerful while not being reliable (e.g. He knows better than us, His goal isn't to make life easy, He is simultaneously just and merciful, etc.). Perhaps Christians should conscientiously cease to trumpet God's reliability and divert their focus to explaining why He is not.

replace not negate

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

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

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

Which Faramir represents your response to temptation?

The book Two Towers by J.R.R. Tolkien was adapted into a hugely profitable movie some years ago. One of the changes that long-time readers easily spotted was a divergence in the character "Faramir". And this difference illustrates two responses to temptation, which in Tolkien's trilogy is clearly exemplified by the "attraction" of the One Ring.

• In the movie, Faramir sees the Ring and chooses to only consider the good that it might do, despite also seeing the manner in which the Ring twisted Gollum's mind. His mindset is "ends justify the means", and he willfully ignores the issue of the Ring's consequences. The extended edition of the movie includes other scenes that show a deep rift between Faramir and his father due to favoritism for his brother. Faramir allows this pain to control his reaction to the Ring's temptation, acting out of that instead of acting out of a clear-headed appreciation of the importance and danger of the Ring. He feels that he must earn love. Instead of turning away from the Ring immediately, he keeps it close to him for a while until later circumstances force him to observe the dark truth of what the Ring is.
• In the book, Faramir is highly-principled, perceptive, and wise. He recognizes that both the Ring and Frodo's quest are beyond his authority to control. Although he could take the Ring by force, he manages to learn from his brother's mistake rather than repeating it. He doesn't need to entertain the thought of the Ring's power for very long before rejecting it. He lets it go.

Temptation is as strong as the One Ring's "pull", especially when someone has allowed it to rule him or her. When it speaks to you and you could easily reach out your hand to grasp it, will you respond like movie Faramir or book Faramir? Will you act out of past pain and fear and confusion and selfishness, ponder the temptation in your mind, and close your eyes to the likely outcomes, then give in? Or will you act out of integrity and humility, eject the temptation from your mind, and consider a full view of the likely outcomes, then turn away?

(I have listened to the commentary and interviews about the movie. I realize that the book version would have reduced the seductive power of the Ring in the eyes of the audience, and the detour to Osgiliath furnished an effective and exciting climax to Frodo's storyline in the second movie. It raises a secondary question that's also interesting: like the movie's portrayal of the Ring, do you see temptation as close to irresistible for any mere man? Or closer to the book's portrayal of the Ring, do you see temptation as conquerable by any mere man, so long as he refuses to give it a foothold in his mind? To be fair, it's notable that in the first movie, both Aragorn and Gandalf succeed in leaving the Ring with Frodo when he offers it willingly.)

"words cannot express God"

Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened. (Matthew 7:7-8 NKJV)

I understand the thrust of the sentiment "words cannot express God". The related set of beloved and trite sayings includes: a picture is worth more than a thousand words, we currently see through a glass darkly, mysterious ways, etc. And just as nobody knows me completely, e.g. the actual breadth and depth of my thoughts and motivations, still fewer could claim the same for God. While we in our finiteness are yet unpredictable, God is beyond us in every way. So God is inescapably unknown and more holy and mysterious than we can comprehend.

However, there is a definite "flip side" to this coin in Christianity, and to say or act otherwise is excessive.

• For all the failure of words to express God, He has selected words and spoken to humanity, about Himself and other topics (including minute details of temple architecture), time after time. To be sure, Yahweh (YHWH, "I am") is clear about how He cannot and shall not be literally portrayed as anything lesser than a simply-infinite unity (hence, no idols), but He does use a range of metaphors like father and king and so forth. The metaphors are by definition fallible; God chose them anyway as expressions of Himself.
• Christianity obviously professes that one of God's forms, that of a human, lived on Earth and went by the name Jesus ("Yeshua" depending on whether you suffer from hyper-pretension). Why would God do this, if He was trying to maintain an "image" of being remote and exalted and unknowable? Moreover, why would Jesus have then spent so much time teaching, offering up so many words to reveal secrets that are "hidden from the wise"? We can hardly expect the Creator Lord of the universe to be more forthcoming with expressive words.

It's true that words cannot express God, His ways are not our ways, and we need no longer settle for a mediator to make contact with Him. Don't extrapolate those truths to mean that the deepest wells of Christian faith and knowledge are somehow nonverbal, or that its essence consists of tingly goosebumps during protracted prayer sessions. As God is there and not silent (hmm, sounds like a book title), we His followers shouldn't disengage from reality nor remain silent about Him.

avoiding politics through politics

Don't expect much discussion about politics by me. Not as long as 1) the topic is often focused on the tedious and trivial and temporary, 2) other websites cover it from as many angles as anyone could want, 3) the primary value of arguments about it appears to be recreational "full-contact debate" rather than successful attempts to influence opinions. (The third issue also sometimes applies to arguments about apologetics...)

I'm not even momentarily breaking political silence in order to comment on anything specific. I just wanted to mention that I've noticed that those writers who state that they wish to depoliticize Christianity more often than not are vocal about politics - as if the way to stop linking Christianity to explicit political causes is to link it to different political causes than usual.

Don't misunderstand. I'm definitely not arguing that Christians need to withdraw entirely from the realm of politics (given that we're blessed with the privilege of accomplishing so much good through democracy, it'd border on foolish to not participate). Nor am I arguing that Christians shouldn't civilly discuss how and when to apply their deepest beliefs to politics. Nor (and I want to ensure this is clear above all else) am I expressing a political "side".

I'm simply perplexed by an observed combination of unabashed politicking and complaints about Christianity being too "political". Doesn't the one seriously undercut the other?

"How do you explain this?"

The title question is what someone often asks after calling attention to an event that appears to contradict one of the responder's beliefs. Its implied meaning is "If you can't fit this actual occurrence into your perspective convincingly, why do you continue to think that your foundational assumptions are right?"

However, this line of argument generally isn't persuasive...for any side. Since nobody can cause the event in question to recur nor investigate it more exhaustively after-the-fact, nobody should expect to have the event be perfectly explained...by anyone. Hence, events of this type fall partially or completely into the realm of the unknown. And the way that someone explains or understands the unknown is just his or her own preexisting assumptions.

1. "Horrible event X happened. But you say that your god is good. How do you explain this, Christian?" One of the rather standard Christian stances is that an omniscient God is to some degree unknowable (well, "unfathomable") in His thoughts and actions in relation to the "big picture" of the whole of creation in time. So the true, full morality and/or purpose of an event is unknown to all but God. Therefore, all that we can honestly say about how we explain a specific event is that we continue to believe that God is good (or bad, or nonexistent, etc.).

2. "We prayed earnestly on behalf of X's health, and a few days later the sickness is almost gone. But you say that based on the evidence of the universe, God must be either nonexistent, morally ambiguous, or even evil. How do you explain this, atheist?" An atheist might retort that a specific regression of illness is impossible to analyze completely, and in any case medical knowledge isn't absolutely complete. So the true, full physical cause of an event is unknown. Therefore, all that we can honestly say is that we continue to believe that a god wasn't involved (or that He was, etc.).

The upshot is that people can usually find sufficient "wriggle room" within any evidence to support what they already believe. They answer "How do you explain this?" with "I can't examine the evidence as much as I would like, to remove all doubt; nevertheless, I still assume _______."