This comment is appropriate for Easter, but I'm too late. Fortunately, it's not specific to holidays. It's specific to every day.
The Trinitarian God lives. The Son intercedes to reunite us to the Father, and the Spirit dwells. All these acts are ongoing. The Spirit changes the Christian by overpowering sin and enabling new motivations. And those acts are ongoing. The Spirit's direction is a "live broadcast". Talk about what someone must do to be "saved" is a debate about the starting line of the race. Or about how to plug the engine into a power outlet. You're saved, surely, but then you must go on to live! We aren't saved in order to transform into beautiful statues. We are saved in order to be actors who find the passion of our performance by capturing the mind behind the play. "Mission" and "purpose" aren't addendums to the Good News, but are what happens when live people reconnect with a living God. Rituals that reorient the person to the God are life-giving, not "dead rote". A God-inspired Word is more than historical documentation. It's a path for the living God to stroll inside the willing scholar. Perhaps the most instructive dividing line between Christians is not the numerous theological distinctions. It's the difference between those who live as if in tribute to a dead God and those who live as if in communion with a live God.
Sunday, July 17, 2011
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
attitude toward personal discretion
Not all Christians agree on some arenas of behavior; not all actions are commonly known to be "sin" or "holy". As conscientious devotees enact their personal discretion, there are two basic categories of possibilities: 1) restriction, 2) allowance. Which attitude shall fellow believers take? Are they to cheer restriction or allowance?
In my opinion, that question is a trick. People who always lean toward either of the two categories aren't properly exercising their own discretion. Sometimes restriction is prudent, and sometimes allowance is quite harmless. It's not a question that can be answered in general. Default answers are too often unexamined answers.
Furthermore, Christians must be highly alert to the danger of amplifying differences in personal discretion into haughy attitudes. Some consider the embodiment of commitment to consist of constant sacrifices of virtually every delight in the pursuit of holiness; some consider the embodiment of Spirit-led freedom from the Law of death to consist of joyful and love-filled improvisation combined with continual self-monitoring in every individual at every time. An accusation "Your restrictions close your mind to understanding and reaching the unbeliever" can be just as toxic as "Your permissiveness clouds your heart to understanding and reaching the Holy One".
Personal discretion isn't an excuse to take revenge on the downfalls of your upbringing through attacks on differing Christians. Whether you feel that your physically or emotionally absent parents failed to give you a firm compass, or that your domineering and humorless parents failed to give you affection for God, your opportunity is to move beyond rather than merely react against their excesses.
In my opinion, that question is a trick. People who always lean toward either of the two categories aren't properly exercising their own discretion. Sometimes restriction is prudent, and sometimes allowance is quite harmless. It's not a question that can be answered in general. Default answers are too often unexamined answers.
Furthermore, Christians must be highly alert to the danger of amplifying differences in personal discretion into haughy attitudes. Some consider the embodiment of commitment to consist of constant sacrifices of virtually every delight in the pursuit of holiness; some consider the embodiment of Spirit-led freedom from the Law of death to consist of joyful and love-filled improvisation combined with continual self-monitoring in every individual at every time. An accusation "Your restrictions close your mind to understanding and reaching the unbeliever" can be just as toxic as "Your permissiveness clouds your heart to understanding and reaching the Holy One".
Personal discretion isn't an excuse to take revenge on the downfalls of your upbringing through attacks on differing Christians. Whether you feel that your physically or emotionally absent parents failed to give you a firm compass, or that your domineering and humorless parents failed to give you affection for God, your opportunity is to move beyond rather than merely react against their excesses.
Monday, May 23, 2011
problematic virtues
Oddly enough, I suspect that for too many Christians the mental barrier to greater spiritual growth is what they call their "virtues". Whenever a Christian conveniently considers a personal flaw as a virtue, it's a blindness. How can someone start to improve without first recognizing the need for improvement? Ponder the possibilities...
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...
- "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?
For instance, I'm aware that I have far to go. I struggle with the assumption that people who are typically courageous have tiny and limp imaginations. I think to myself, "If he, like I, had any creative inkling of what could go wrong or how extremely unpleasant it would be, he wouldn't have that rather blank facial expression of nonchalance." Then again, I was one of those children who couldn't watch monster movies without experiencing subsequent horrific phantasms that stealthily stalked me...
Thursday, May 5, 2011
is it there or not?
This is supremely illuminating about the public's way of thinking. People have spent extended periods of time debating how and why there is a Christianity without Hell, only to abruptly shift to the opinion that a specific "truly awful" dead person must be in Hell.
Arguments about the very existence of something cannot be murky or half-resolved. The answer is "yes" or "no", "aye" or "nay", "true" or "false", "reality" or "fantasy", "fiction" or "nonfiction". There can certainly be discussion about the precise nature and characteristics of the disputed thing, but those are separate prior questions.
I could assert or retract innumerable rhetorical claims about the absence of my hairbrush. But the fact is that it's sitting right over there in another room, with volume and mass quite independent of my imaginings to the contrary. I could do the same about the presence of my rowboat in my backyard. But the fact is that no rowboat is in my backyard.
Hell is the same way. People can think and say whatever they like, but if they constantly contradict their own statements, it's difficult to figure out how their beliefs, ill-defined guesses that shift around like the tide, could ever be confirmed or violated. If someone isn't taking a position either way, or taking opposite positions simultaneously, it's more honest to just express one's total lack of clarity than to give away one's lack of intellectual commitment by spewing out half-considered sentiments on a deeply important topic.
Arguments about the very existence of something cannot be murky or half-resolved. The answer is "yes" or "no", "aye" or "nay", "true" or "false", "reality" or "fantasy", "fiction" or "nonfiction". There can certainly be discussion about the precise nature and characteristics of the disputed thing, but those are separate prior questions.
I could assert or retract innumerable rhetorical claims about the absence of my hairbrush. But the fact is that it's sitting right over there in another room, with volume and mass quite independent of my imaginings to the contrary. I could do the same about the presence of my rowboat in my backyard. But the fact is that no rowboat is in my backyard.
Hell is the same way. People can think and say whatever they like, but if they constantly contradict their own statements, it's difficult to figure out how their beliefs, ill-defined guesses that shift around like the tide, could ever be confirmed or violated. If someone isn't taking a position either way, or taking opposite positions simultaneously, it's more honest to just express one's total lack of clarity than to give away one's lack of intellectual commitment by spewing out half-considered sentiments on a deeply important topic.
Saturday, April 30, 2011
a metaphorical Bible
Not too long ago I read a heartfelt essay from a self-identified Christian. He attempted to argue that "overly literal" interpretations of the Bible may reflect a disdain for truth. To summarize, he claimed that since the Bible contains apparent contradictions with itself and with external reality/history, e.g. locations that are difficult to distinguish, timelines that are too compressed to be real, etc., then no serious believers should try to put their faith in dubious biblical facts. Rather, he advised them to acknowledge metaphorical truths of the Bible. Therefore the stories have moral points, the events have mythological impact or emotional heft, and of course God's actions are presumably hypothetical examples for mankind.
My reaction to this is a little complex. I don't think the Bible is intended as a stringently historical document. Not all of the tiny details of an eyewitness account must be perfectly accurate in order for the major points to be materially true. I also don't think the Bible is intended as a science textbook (flashback to 2007 with that link!). Its focus is clearly on interactions between God and pre-scientific people.
However, my assumption remains that the Bible is an imperfect communication of absolute truth. God is a creator, ruler, provider, and savior. God has acted in many ways as the Bible describes. Given these premises, "miracles" are quite possible. Furthermore, God came in the flesh as the man Jesus, died, and rose. Regardless of the fuzzy narrative liberties that may exist in the Bible, these items happened. Christians settled on such theological points. Their goal wasn't to stifle reason or individual experience. It was to avoid mass confusion and false education as the spread of Christianity inevitably led to people who wanted to use it as a base ingredient of flashy/attractive sects and religious mishmash.
Here, a metaphorical Bible begins to break down, because the entire Bible surely isn't intended to be entirely metaphorical. "Metaphorical truth" is convenient above all. By definition, metaphors don't have independent/self-evident meaning and implications. Like poetry, metaphorical language requires the reader to reconnect the text with something else to attain the whole word-picture. They must read between the lines, expand, contract, whitewash, recolor, add, erase. A metaphorical Bible is ideally suited for a postmodernist who wishes to construct a "brand new text" from out of the interaction among writer, text, reader, subtext, context, etc. In this process, the reader's expectations are automatically confirmed.
Shifting meanings of metaphorical truth are also convenient guides for behavior. Commands that seem right to a man are less metaphorical, and the lesser-liked are more metaphorical. In extreme cases like that exhibited by the essay that I read, there isn't anything unique about the Bible in comparison to any other "metaphorical book". After all, morality tales elsewhere are also good for encouraging nice living and knowledge about basic human nature. I anticipate the next essay from the writer (the following is not a quote, only a guess):
However, my assumption remains that the Bible is an imperfect communication of absolute truth. God is a creator, ruler, provider, and savior. God has acted in many ways as the Bible describes. Given these premises, "miracles" are quite possible. Furthermore, God came in the flesh as the man Jesus, died, and rose. Regardless of the fuzzy narrative liberties that may exist in the Bible, these items happened. Christians settled on such theological points. Their goal wasn't to stifle reason or individual experience. It was to avoid mass confusion and false education as the spread of Christianity inevitably led to people who wanted to use it as a base ingredient of flashy/attractive sects and religious mishmash.
Here, a metaphorical Bible begins to break down, because the entire Bible surely isn't intended to be entirely metaphorical. "Metaphorical truth" is convenient above all. By definition, metaphors don't have independent/self-evident meaning and implications. Like poetry, metaphorical language requires the reader to reconnect the text with something else to attain the whole word-picture. They must read between the lines, expand, contract, whitewash, recolor, add, erase. A metaphorical Bible is ideally suited for a postmodernist who wishes to construct a "brand new text" from out of the interaction among writer, text, reader, subtext, context, etc. In this process, the reader's expectations are automatically confirmed.
Shifting meanings of metaphorical truth are also convenient guides for behavior. Commands that seem right to a man are less metaphorical, and the lesser-liked are more metaphorical. In extreme cases like that exhibited by the essay that I read, there isn't anything unique about the Bible in comparison to any other "metaphorical book". After all, morality tales elsewhere are also good for encouraging nice living and knowledge about basic human nature. I anticipate the next essay from the writer (the following is not a quote, only a guess):
Perhaps we should form an afternoon church service around intense study and celebration of Aesop's Fables. In fact, all the Christian singing and recitation about atonement is a really difficult metaphor, so let's drop it. That applies tenfold to the awful stuff about being a "bought slave to Christ". And Easter can't be about actual resurrection; it's an existential literary illustration of the positive human ability to continually redefine your personal identity as you see fit. No wonder all the people whom we like will join us in heaven regardless of religious inclination. Their sacred books are just as metaphorical as ours. And those atheists who don't live like jerks are gonna look so surprised when they receive their reward of eternal blessings right alongside us...
Monday, April 18, 2011
practical privatization of charity
My pattern is to be silent on politically-charged (in the USA) issues. One huge category of these is the overall role of government. What is the economically-optimal and/or morally-just ratio of the "public" and "private" sectors? Which achievements benefit from government's unique qualities?
Well-intentioned Christians differ on to what degree government should direct resources into charity. By "charity" I only mean supplying a cost-free individual benefit of some kind to recipients who can't afford the market price (1,2). Many Christians seem to think that government is an invaluable instrument for large-scale charity. Many other Christians seem to think that government involvement in such charity is too costly in terms of the reduction in private liberty (3).
I'm not interested here in producing arguments for either opinion. But what I find striking is a significant missing part of the debate. If someone supports a near-total privatization of charity, then doesn't that position entail a realistic plan for doing so? For government to drop charitable functions, it must be assumed that people will make up the difference. If people will be better givers without government in the way, then how will this occur? There's no question that less government giving can result in a lower tax rate, but afterward what percentage of those former tax amounts must be exclusively redirected to charity in order to continue to care for the poor?
This is a pivotal consideration for the plan to work. Assume (4) the plan subtracts from a particular person's effective tax rate percentage. How much of that difference will the person dedicate instead to direct private charity? Statistically, some people will end up giving less and some people more. So in the aggregate the question turns into the average amount that people contribute from their tax cut. When everything is summed, do the poor come out ahead or not after the proposed privatization of charity (5)? Furthermore, Christians should keep in mind that they'll likely need to give in excess to drag the average back up to a desirable range despite the "unprincipled deadbeats" who'll opt to take the tax cut difference and spend it on electronic geegaws, for example.
Public-sector charity has considerable administrative inefficiencies (6). Private-sector charity has considerable moral inefficiencies (i.e. personal selfishness). I think it's worth asking which is more detrimental in practice.
1. Obviously the definition of the Christian virtue of charity can be much broader.
2. The benefit could be money itself, in which case "can't afford the market price" refers to not having income-yielding capital/assets. For a typical worker who trades their labor for income, the corresponding capital/assets might be education/skills and the necessary physical and mental capability to do the job.
3. I purposefully exclude from consideration a possible third group of "Christians" who flatly object to the mere monetary cost of charity.
4. I admit this would be more convincing with the actual numbers, but I don't have the information.
5. Of course, this calculation should also include resulting differences in the poor's taxes. However, in the case of most poor, their taxes are very low both before and after the plan takes effect.
6. And so do many huge privately-owned foundations.
Well-intentioned Christians differ on to what degree government should direct resources into charity. By "charity" I only mean supplying a cost-free individual benefit of some kind to recipients who can't afford the market price (1,2). Many Christians seem to think that government is an invaluable instrument for large-scale charity. Many other Christians seem to think that government involvement in such charity is too costly in terms of the reduction in private liberty (3).
I'm not interested here in producing arguments for either opinion. But what I find striking is a significant missing part of the debate. If someone supports a near-total privatization of charity, then doesn't that position entail a realistic plan for doing so? For government to drop charitable functions, it must be assumed that people will make up the difference. If people will be better givers without government in the way, then how will this occur? There's no question that less government giving can result in a lower tax rate, but afterward what percentage of those former tax amounts must be exclusively redirected to charity in order to continue to care for the poor?
This is a pivotal consideration for the plan to work. Assume (4) the plan subtracts from a particular person's effective tax rate percentage. How much of that difference will the person dedicate instead to direct private charity? Statistically, some people will end up giving less and some people more. So in the aggregate the question turns into the average amount that people contribute from their tax cut. When everything is summed, do the poor come out ahead or not after the proposed privatization of charity (5)? Furthermore, Christians should keep in mind that they'll likely need to give in excess to drag the average back up to a desirable range despite the "unprincipled deadbeats" who'll opt to take the tax cut difference and spend it on electronic geegaws, for example.
Public-sector charity has considerable administrative inefficiencies (6). Private-sector charity has considerable moral inefficiencies (i.e. personal selfishness). I think it's worth asking which is more detrimental in practice.
1. Obviously the definition of the Christian virtue of charity can be much broader.
2. The benefit could be money itself, in which case "can't afford the market price" refers to not having income-yielding capital/assets. For a typical worker who trades their labor for income, the corresponding capital/assets might be education/skills and the necessary physical and mental capability to do the job.
3. I purposefully exclude from consideration a possible third group of "Christians" who flatly object to the mere monetary cost of charity.
4. I admit this would be more convincing with the actual numbers, but I don't have the information.
5. Of course, this calculation should also include resulting differences in the poor's taxes. However, in the case of most poor, their taxes are very low both before and after the plan takes effect.
6. And so do many huge privately-owned foundations.
Saturday, April 2, 2011
The ultimate reason why Hell is possible...
...is because many, many people want there to be one. It strikes me that those who dismiss Hell by focusing on God's qualities (i.e. Hell cannot exist since He is love and mercy) are quite correct about Him; I don't actually believe that Hell is God's invention, or He rules and tends it, or He's eager for people to experience it. In my church's tradition, we don't even believe that the lost are "predestined" in any tangible sense.
No, God's not responsible for Hell. He can't be, when Hell is the absence of Him and all His influence. This sin and Hell stuff aren't part of the plan. That's humanity's contribution! The Gospel is that Hell is now a choice rather than a foregone conclusion for people depraved from birth.
In short, Hell must exist because of the rebellious and stubborn character of many, many people. They choose and so they can resist and reject the divine. "You may be God, but as for me I make the decisions and determine/measure/judge the Truth!" Hell doesn't decrease God's perfection in the least.
Hell is the person who, placed in Eden, does exactly the one forbidden act. Hell is the person who, placed in the City of God, defaces the palaces with obscene graffiti. Hell is the person who simply can't accept unconditional love due to the firm belief that no one could possibly love him or her for no reason. Hell is the person who takes and takes and takes. Hell is the person who pursues a thousand cheap thrills instead of one hard-earned genuine moment of joy. Hell is the person whose absolute fear of entrapment bars him or her from expressing love through sacrificial commitments. Hell is the person who sees the worst motive in every innocent act. Hell is the person who can never sympathize and never negotiate in good faith. God is love, but a stiff-necked and acrimonious people will refuse Him unto the uttermost. It's presumptuous of us to underestimate their resolve to supplant God. Hell is what happens when you reign.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)