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...

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.