This title in the July/August "Reader's Digest" was timely given the events that took place in Charleston, SC when Dylann Roof murdered nine men and women because of the color of their skin.
There has been much discussion and reaction to this event--much of it particularly misguided in my estimation. I mean, some have used this shooting as a platform to rid the nation of symbols of the Confederacy. But removing the Confederate flag from public grounds will do very little to address the real, underlying issue regarding racism and prejudice. There is much more to this issue--much which is not being discussed.
I am going to take just a moment to deal with particular definitions in this subject. I think it is important to do so because if we cannot agree on terminology, then we cannot agree on solutions. Therefore, in this post, I will define
Racism as prejudice with power. (A definition I was exposed to in college.)
Prejudice as an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics. (from Merriam-Webster's third definition)
It is important, I think, to deal with prejudice. The appropriation of power, history shows, changes over time. It rises and falls among groups over and over and over again. If prejudice is combined with that power, racism occurs.
The Nature of Power
The philosopher Fredrich Nietzsche penned many influential writings which actually underpin much of our surrounding culture these days. Philosophically, Nietzsche removed transcendence from reality. Essentially what he said was: human reason cannot prove any sort of reality above and beyond this world. Therefore, what is our motivation for doing things? What is our reason for engaging in whatever activity we engage in?
Nietzsche's answer was: will to power. Essentially, we strive to put ourselves in the most advantageous position possible. We strive to get our own way; to make our own lives easier; to put ourselves in a position of power and authority so that we do not answer to anyone.
One might argue Nietzsche's basic postulates; however, I don't think he is far from the truth. For Christianity also says that humankind tends to act with its own self-interests in mind. Christianity states that humankind tends to seek autonomous authority where we answer to no one and make our own decisions without regard to anyone else--but with regard to our own well-being. This is the original sin of the garden of Eden where humankind wanted the knowledge of good and evil so that it no longer needed reference to the One who created them.
"What does this have to do with racism?" you might ask. Everything, I think.
The Nature of Prejudice
I personally do not believe we are naturally racist or prejudice, but we become prejudice very, very fast. In the July/August issue of Reader's Digest an article caught my eye. It was titled "Are We Naturally Born Racists?" I encourage you to read the article in its entirety to see the research that the following quotes are based upon. [The research is based on the IAT, and if you would like to take the test you can find it here.] I found the following one particularly fascinating:
"Humans are tribal creatures, showing strong bias against those we perceive as different from us and favoritism toward those we perceive as similar. In fact, we humans will divide ourselves into in-groups and out-groups even when the perceived differences between specific groups are completely arbitrary." Reader's Digest,
July/August 2015 "Are We Naturally-Born Racists?" Pp. 113-114.
Let that sink in just a moment before reading the next one.
"In other words, if you give people the slightest push toward behaving
tribally, they'll happily comply. So if race is the basis on which
tribes are identified, expect serious problems." Reader's Digest,
July/August 2015 "Are We Naturally-Born Racists?" P.114.
We only need the slightest push to begin drawing lines in the sand and acting tribally.
It Should Seem Obvious, but...
In my Sunday School adult class we have spoken at length about race issues and whether or not racism is on the decline. Racist behavior I think is significantly less because of the Civil Right's Movement; however racist attitudes, I think, have not abated. The above research perhaps gives us an insight as to why.
One of the gentlemen in my class who is over seventy recalled in the early days in the Cat Spring, TX community how Germans and Czechs drew sharp lines of distinction. Intermarriage was "verboten". Drinking beer socially was acceptable, but that was about it. The two groups sought to be distinct and separate. They clung to their differences. Over time, those barriers faded, and the cultural distinction is almost gone.
"Why?" one might ask. These groups were divided based upon clinging to a particular culture and language that kept them distinct. As time passed and generations lost many cultural practices and children learned English only, the differences evaporated. There were no longer lines that caused divisions. Remember, the brain needs only a slight push to draw the boundaries and become tribal. When language and cultural distinctions evaporated, tribalism vanished.
That's not easily done with physical attributes, is it?
One cannot simply wait 60 years for skin color to change. It won't. Intermarriage will not produce a "greying" of color anytime soon. This distinction will remain regardless of our best efforts to become colorblind. You cannot help but see the differences. And if our brains just need the slightest push...
We will become tribal. Not we will, we are tribal.
This is not just a "white" problem. This is not just a "black" problem. This is not just a "brown" problem. This is a human problem that demands a radical answer.
Society's Answers
Society over and over again has tried to teach us that no matter what is outside, we all bleed red. This is most certainly true.
Society has taught us since the overthrow of the Jim Crow laws that skin color is irrelevant compared to our identity as human beings. This is most certainly true.
Martin Luther King, Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech resounds with words that touch many of us to our very core--the dream of a nation where we are judged by the content of our character instead of the color of our skin.
If these truths are embraced by many and believed by many, why do we still find such division? Why do we still see so few integrated neighborhoods? Why is Sunday morning still the most segregated morning of the week? Why do kids congregate among kids of their same color?
We only need the slightest push toward tribalism.
Do we naturally disregard these ideals and continue to cling to our respective culture of color?
I think we do. And no matter how much you point to the ideal, human nature has a tendency of taking over--whether we want it to or not!
Why?
Because of two things: 1) In the deepest recesses of our hearts we want to be with others who are just like us. Our brains make distinctions and cling to them, so nothing less than a total restructuring of our brain's natural state needs to occur. 2) Our Western, enlightenment society still tells us to cling to our racial identity! Embrace the color of your skin! Let no one tell you, your skin color is bad or wrong or ugly! This is central and core to your being!
And in one way it is, but in another way, it perpetuates the problem. For if I cling to my skin color and if my skin color is central to my being, then those who do not share my skin color are categorized as different by my brain--whether I want my brain to do this or not. And we only need a slight nudge toward tribalism...
The Gospel's Answer
Christianity proposes another answer--one that is much more difficult, but much more liberating and all encompassing.
The Christian answer begins with dying to self. That's a hard thing to swallow because we love ourselves. We do everything we can to preserve ourselves. Evolution has bred us to look out for ourselves and protect everything about us--not only my physical self, but also my identity. I am who I am, and no one is going to tell me to be otherwise!
Yet, Jesus says, "Find your identity in me. Don't look to your race, gender, ethnicity, or social status. Don't look to your wallet or your possessions. Don't find your sense of self-worth in how many Facebook likes you get or in how many degrees you possess. Find your worth, value, and identity in me."
St. Paul articulated this in brilliant fashion when he penned the words of Galatians 3:27-28, "For as many of you as are baptized in Christ Jesus have clothed yourself with Christ. For there is no longer Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female. All of you are one in Christ Jesus."
The White Privilege Accusation
When my wife and I adopted our first daughter (who is bi-racial), I sat down to fill out my parochial report for my congregation. As I contemplated the report, I became very uncomfortable. You see, my denomination wants me (on the basis of my best judgement) to write down the racial/ethnic composition of my congregation. As I looked at the places to fill in such categories, I unequivocally thought about my own family. Do I look at my daughter and think, "Oh, she is bi-racial. Her skin tone is black."? NO. UNEQUIVOCALLY, NO!!!! I simply see her as my daughter.
The human brain only needs the slightest nudge to draw lines and act tribally...
I filled in the blank under "other" for the entire congregation. I wrote in "Children of God."
I ended up in a heated discussion with someone in Chicago, IL where our church offices are located. I was accused of having viewing the topic with white privilege and that "with all deference to St. Paul's theology, the Division for such and such requires these numbers."
So you are putting the Division for such and such ahead of the clear biblical witness? Which one do you think I am going to listen to?
"You are speaking from a position of white privilege."
Now, I am going to go back to Nietzsche because Nietzsche was remarkable in his assessment of human nature. He says we all seek our own will to power. We don't, by default, seek the greater good. We don't, by default, seek the betterment of society. Nietzsche argues (and rather successfully since much of philosophy has been trying to deal with him for the last 100+ years) that we only seek things that have some direct benefit to ourselves. It's a great understanding of original sin.
The claim that folks like myself are speaking from a position of white privilege is nothing more than a power play to lessen the force of a particular segment of society and increase the power of other voices within that same society. In this case, the claim of white privilege places a priority on the voices of people of color (putting them into ascendance of power) while making secondary (putting them in a lower position) the voices of people labeled as "white." It's a power play, plain and simple.
I expect to be soundly bashed for that comment, but I think I am on solid ground with my assertion. The claim of white privilege allows society to continue to draw lines based upon skin color, and:
The human brain only needs the slightest nudge to draw lines and act tribally.
Toward a Solution
Christianity offers a pathway forward because of the nature of the Gospel.
The Gospel does not allow anyone to take the moral high road. It does not allow anyone to place his or her race in a position of moral superiority or authority. For Jesus died for us WHILE WE WERE STILL SINNERS.
The Gospel also does not allow anyone to wallow in victim hood. For the GOD OF THE UNIVERSE BOUGHT YOU WITH GREAT PRICE showing your immense value to Him.
These two things try to address something that society cannot touch: the heart. For it is the heart which seeks power and privilege. It is the heart which has selfish intentions, and it is these selfish intentions and desires for self-preservation that lead us to isolate ourselves from others and draw our boundaries.
The human brain only needs the slightest nudge to draw lines and act tribally...
But if those lines are destroyed because all have sinned.
And if those lines are destroyed because God's desire is to redeem all.
Then, no racial group can claim to be better than another with these two fundamental understandings. There is something that cuts us down at the knees while at the same time building us up. There is something that humbles us in our interactions with God and with one another without making us feel like we are worthless.
I simply cannot look at a person of a different color and see myself as better than him or her when I know that I was and am a sinner. I cannot look at a person of a different color and see myself as somehow superior when I know that person is made in the image of God and clothed with the righteousness of Christ--the same garment I am clothed in!!! I cannot see myself belonging to another group based upon ethnicity or skin color when all has been covered by Jesus.
And for those who are not part of the Christian faith, I am not commissioned to see them as anything less than fellow human beings who need to hear the Gospel just as much as I needed to hear it.
For certain the Church has not done a very good job of following through on the implications of the Gospel, but I believe part of this is due to the fact that we've forgotten the nature of that very Gospel. But that is another topic for a later date.
Showing posts with label Nietzsche. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Nietzsche. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 9, 2015
Tuesday, April 21, 2015
Only the Cross
I find myself in a bit of a pickle as I think long and hard about my relationship with the larger church (ELCA). I love my church. There is no doubt about this. I want her to grow and thrive. I want the God-awful state of decline she has been in to reverse itself and for people to fill her pews on a given Sunday morning. I long for the day when all of our congregation's pews: Lutheran, Baptist, Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Pentecostal, and the like are filled to overflowing as people come from far and wide to worship.
I do not wish for any church body to decline and die.
And yet, many are. Some slowly. Some spiraling out of control.
Now, this is not some sort of "the Church must change or die" sort of post. God knows, I've heard so many of those lectures and read so many of those blogs that I have started tuning them out.
That goes for those folks who say that we need to become more moralistic.
That goes for those folks who say that we need to focus more on justice.
That goes for those folks who say that we need to change our doctrines.
That goes for those folks who say that we need to stop being so liberal.
That goes for those folks who say that we need to stop being so conservative.
That goes for those folks who say that we need to implement more programs.
That goes for those folks who say that we need to implement less programs.
That goes for those folks who say that we need to have more "contemporary"/modern worship.
That goes for those folks who say that we need to have more "traditional" worship.
In each and every one of these things, we are focusing on ourselves. We are trying to figure out what the surrounding culture wants and give it to them. It's as if we believe the Church is here to satisfy the needs and desires of the culture, and if we want our pews to be full, then we need to be giving the culture what it wants.
I can see the early Church trying to take such action.
"Well, you see those Jews over there. They expect a Messiah who will come and establish power and peace by military force. The Messiah will overthrow the Romans and free the nation of Israel. Let's shun the cross and what Jesus did and talk about such power and might. Let's give them what they want."
"Well, you see those Gentiles over there. They want comfort and security. They want a god who is omniscient and omnipotent who can favor them. Let's get rid of the cross where God dies and give them a god who allows them joy and pleasure in their lives."
"For the cross is a stumbling-block to Jews and foolishness to the Gentiles." --1 Corinthians 1:23.
Indeed, the cross still is foolishness. It must be. That's the only reason I can think of that it didn't make an appearance at the Synod Assembly I attended last week. Can you imagine a Synod Assembly whose focus was intended to be evangelism that didn't mention the cross? That didn't mention the acts of God on that cross? Can you imagine a Lutheran Synod Assembly whose focus was supposedly evangelism--whose founder espoused and coined the phrase the theology of the cross--who didn't spend a single minute asking the question, "How do we convey the message of the cross in this day and age? How do we talk about God's reconciling the world unto Himself in this postmodern age?"
So, what was the Synod Assembly focused on?
Essentially, it was one giant pep-rally trying to get us to do good things. Yep, that was it. Work hard at being especially nice. Work hard at listening to your neighbors. Work hard at loving everyone. That is evangelism. Your works are evangelism. What you do is evangelism.
So, you might ask, what is the problem with that? I'd like you to read the following quote from a young man who served on a panel of young adults at the Synod Assembly. He leans atheist/agnostic, and he offered this scathing criticism of the church:
What response can one give to such a scathing criticism IF the church's job is "doing good things?"
There is no response. The criticism stands, and the Church is convicted. (Although to be fair, in the omitted examples this gentleman listed in his screed where he asked "Where is the Church?", in all reality, the Church was already in all of those places. One can easily ask the question: why can't you see it there?)
In fact, as I was debriefing with one of my members, I was brutally honest. I said, "I don't want this guy in my church. He reminds me of myself not too long ago. Arrogant. Self-righteous. He'd be a troublemaker. But it doesn't matter if I want him in church or not. There is One who does want Him. There is One who wants His heart and soul."
Indeed, there is one part of the young man's criticism that is Truth: the Church should never try and make itself the center of everyone's world. Never. Ever! At the center of everyone's world should be a cross with a suffering God who is stretching His arms out to suffer and die to make sure the world is reconciled to their Heavenly Father. At the center of everyone's world should be Jesus.
If anyone in the Christian Church disputes this, then I simply think you cannot call yourself a Christian. (Read my extended quote from Dietrich Bonhoeffer from a few days ago.) If at the center of your world is anything less than Jesus, then you are committing idolatry. You have a false god.
And so, the answer to the young man's question is Jesus. The Church doesn't want you, sir. Jesus does. The Church will go on without you too, but there is One who doesn't want to go on without you. There is one who was willing to die for you. I know you probably don't see that or get that. You are completely and totally focused on your actions and the actions of the world and the Church. You want to make a difference. I understand that. I really do. I wanted to change the world myself.
But I found out something. It was a hard lesson. A very hard one. I couldn't make that difference. I couldn't change people. I couldn't change the world. I might be able to feed a person for a day. I might be able to lobby government officials. I might even be able to lead a movement to change laws, but I can never, ever change someone's heart. I can't make people love each other. I can't make people get along and see each other a fully human. I can't convince people to stop looking out for their own interests and look out for the interests of another.
I know you are a studious sort of person. It came across very strongly in your presentation. Read Nietzsche? You understand, don't you, that if there is no transcendence, no God, then everything we do are simply power plays, right? You do understand that essentially we are all working out our own wills to power even if we say we are looking out for another? You could argue that you aren't looking out for yourself, but Nietzsche would scoff at you and say, "Yeah right. The only reason you are trying to help others is because you get some benefit.
You see, there is One who indeed came and lived for no benefit to Himself. Jesus didn't need anything from us. He was totally satisfied, loved, and glorified in His relationship with His Father and the Spirit. He needed and needs nothing from us. Yet, He came to us for a reason--to change our hearts that we might experience the same kind of love He knows living with the Father and the Spirit. He came that we might be able to love one another without any sort of contempt or anger towards those who are different than we are. And He showed that not with power and might but with a cross.
It's all about Jesus and the cross. If you can't get someone to the foot of the cross, then...well, you might be doing some good things, but you are not doing evangelism. And if the Church exists solely for doing good things, then we have no need of worship. We have no need for buildings and Bible Study. All we essentially need is to have someone urge us, remind us, sometimes whip us into submission to "Love our neighbors as we love ourselves."
But Christianity isn't about that. Evangelism isn't about that. It's all about Jesus. It's focal point is the cross.
Somehow, this has been pushed to the periphery. No longer is it at the center.
To our detriment.
What will it take to reclaim our cross-centeredness?
I frankly don't know, but I know what I will do from henceforth:
When I came to you, brothers and sisters, I did not come proclaiming the mystery of God to you in lofty words or wisdom. 2For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and him crucified. -- 1 Corinthians 2:1-2.
If that message changed hearts then, it will still change hearts now. Here I stand...
I do not wish for any church body to decline and die.
And yet, many are. Some slowly. Some spiraling out of control.
Now, this is not some sort of "the Church must change or die" sort of post. God knows, I've heard so many of those lectures and read so many of those blogs that I have started tuning them out.
That goes for those folks who say that we need to become more moralistic.
That goes for those folks who say that we need to focus more on justice.
That goes for those folks who say that we need to change our doctrines.
That goes for those folks who say that we need to stop being so liberal.
That goes for those folks who say that we need to stop being so conservative.
That goes for those folks who say that we need to implement more programs.
That goes for those folks who say that we need to implement less programs.
That goes for those folks who say that we need to have more "contemporary"/modern worship.
That goes for those folks who say that we need to have more "traditional" worship.
In each and every one of these things, we are focusing on ourselves. We are trying to figure out what the surrounding culture wants and give it to them. It's as if we believe the Church is here to satisfy the needs and desires of the culture, and if we want our pews to be full, then we need to be giving the culture what it wants.
I can see the early Church trying to take such action.
"Well, you see those Jews over there. They expect a Messiah who will come and establish power and peace by military force. The Messiah will overthrow the Romans and free the nation of Israel. Let's shun the cross and what Jesus did and talk about such power and might. Let's give them what they want."
"Well, you see those Gentiles over there. They want comfort and security. They want a god who is omniscient and omnipotent who can favor them. Let's get rid of the cross where God dies and give them a god who allows them joy and pleasure in their lives."
"For the cross is a stumbling-block to Jews and foolishness to the Gentiles." --1 Corinthians 1:23.
Indeed, the cross still is foolishness. It must be. That's the only reason I can think of that it didn't make an appearance at the Synod Assembly I attended last week. Can you imagine a Synod Assembly whose focus was intended to be evangelism that didn't mention the cross? That didn't mention the acts of God on that cross? Can you imagine a Lutheran Synod Assembly whose focus was supposedly evangelism--whose founder espoused and coined the phrase the theology of the cross--who didn't spend a single minute asking the question, "How do we convey the message of the cross in this day and age? How do we talk about God's reconciling the world unto Himself in this postmodern age?"
So, what was the Synod Assembly focused on?
Essentially, it was one giant pep-rally trying to get us to do good things. Yep, that was it. Work hard at being especially nice. Work hard at listening to your neighbors. Work hard at loving everyone. That is evangelism. Your works are evangelism. What you do is evangelism.
So, you might ask, what is the problem with that? I'd like you to read the following quote from a young man who served on a panel of young adults at the Synod Assembly. He leans atheist/agnostic, and he offered this scathing criticism of the church:
But the part of me that lives on the edges has to stop and ask this...why? Why is the christian church trying to recruit "youths ages 18-35 who make up the blah blah blah??? What does having more people in church do?
The people I asked to help me with this do amazing things, why doesn't the church stop trying to pull them into their crowd and instead go out and be with them? ...The question I want answered is, when will the church stop trying to make itself the center of everyone's world and go out and do something like so many 18-35 year olds are doing, because I have to tell you, we are just waiting for the day the church joins us.
What response can one give to such a scathing criticism IF the church's job is "doing good things?"
There is no response. The criticism stands, and the Church is convicted. (Although to be fair, in the omitted examples this gentleman listed in his screed where he asked "Where is the Church?", in all reality, the Church was already in all of those places. One can easily ask the question: why can't you see it there?)
In fact, as I was debriefing with one of my members, I was brutally honest. I said, "I don't want this guy in my church. He reminds me of myself not too long ago. Arrogant. Self-righteous. He'd be a troublemaker. But it doesn't matter if I want him in church or not. There is One who does want Him. There is One who wants His heart and soul."
Indeed, there is one part of the young man's criticism that is Truth: the Church should never try and make itself the center of everyone's world. Never. Ever! At the center of everyone's world should be a cross with a suffering God who is stretching His arms out to suffer and die to make sure the world is reconciled to their Heavenly Father. At the center of everyone's world should be Jesus.
If anyone in the Christian Church disputes this, then I simply think you cannot call yourself a Christian. (Read my extended quote from Dietrich Bonhoeffer from a few days ago.) If at the center of your world is anything less than Jesus, then you are committing idolatry. You have a false god.
And so, the answer to the young man's question is Jesus. The Church doesn't want you, sir. Jesus does. The Church will go on without you too, but there is One who doesn't want to go on without you. There is one who was willing to die for you. I know you probably don't see that or get that. You are completely and totally focused on your actions and the actions of the world and the Church. You want to make a difference. I understand that. I really do. I wanted to change the world myself.
But I found out something. It was a hard lesson. A very hard one. I couldn't make that difference. I couldn't change people. I couldn't change the world. I might be able to feed a person for a day. I might be able to lobby government officials. I might even be able to lead a movement to change laws, but I can never, ever change someone's heart. I can't make people love each other. I can't make people get along and see each other a fully human. I can't convince people to stop looking out for their own interests and look out for the interests of another.
I know you are a studious sort of person. It came across very strongly in your presentation. Read Nietzsche? You understand, don't you, that if there is no transcendence, no God, then everything we do are simply power plays, right? You do understand that essentially we are all working out our own wills to power even if we say we are looking out for another? You could argue that you aren't looking out for yourself, but Nietzsche would scoff at you and say, "Yeah right. The only reason you are trying to help others is because you get some benefit.
You see, there is One who indeed came and lived for no benefit to Himself. Jesus didn't need anything from us. He was totally satisfied, loved, and glorified in His relationship with His Father and the Spirit. He needed and needs nothing from us. Yet, He came to us for a reason--to change our hearts that we might experience the same kind of love He knows living with the Father and the Spirit. He came that we might be able to love one another without any sort of contempt or anger towards those who are different than we are. And He showed that not with power and might but with a cross.
It's all about Jesus and the cross. If you can't get someone to the foot of the cross, then...well, you might be doing some good things, but you are not doing evangelism. And if the Church exists solely for doing good things, then we have no need of worship. We have no need for buildings and Bible Study. All we essentially need is to have someone urge us, remind us, sometimes whip us into submission to "Love our neighbors as we love ourselves."
But Christianity isn't about that. Evangelism isn't about that. It's all about Jesus. It's focal point is the cross.
Somehow, this has been pushed to the periphery. No longer is it at the center.
To our detriment.
What will it take to reclaim our cross-centeredness?
I frankly don't know, but I know what I will do from henceforth:
When I came to you, brothers and sisters, I did not come proclaiming the mystery of God to you in lofty words or wisdom. 2For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and him crucified. -- 1 Corinthians 2:1-2.
If that message changed hearts then, it will still change hearts now. Here I stand...
Wednesday, December 10, 2014
Go Ahead. Protest. For All the Good it Will (not) Do.
My thoughts turned to the protests occurring in select areas of the U.S. after several stories showing questionable to infuriating behavior by police:
The Michael Brown case in Ferguson, MO
The Eric Garner case in Staten Island, NY
The Tamir Rice case in Cleveland, OH
In two cases, grand juries did not issue indictments against the police officers. We are still waiting on the third.
People are angry. Some of them justifiably. They are taking to the streets; to the schools; to colleges and universities; and other arenas to voice their displeasure with the system and call for change and justice.
Good luck.
As the Occupy Movement I think has discovered, so will these: no real change will be forthcoming. There will be no justice.
Why do I say such a thing?
It's not because I am a pessimist. It's not necessarily because I am a realist. It's because I don't think we have a shared agreement of what justice is. We are a nation that is floating and adrift because we no longer have shared understandings about what words mean. We have lost any sense of transcendent meaning. We have no idea what Justice--with a capital J--means. We have lost any sense of what is ultimately right and what is ultimately wrong, and you cannot have Justice without knowing what is right and what is wrong.
We live in a society where we parse words and sayings, take them out of context, and mold them and shape them to suit our own understandings and definitions. We twist things to suit our own particular motivations and agendas. In doing so, we can excuse certain behaviors and actions that blatantly contradict the law.
For instance, the U.S. Constitution Bill of Rights is explicit in Amendment 4:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Try to cite it as you go through an airport. Is it "reasonable" to search every single person who boards a plane? Think about it. If you question being searched, you will be detained--possibly arrested, certainly inconvenienced.
Amendment 2
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
For the better part of the history of our nation, this was an assurance that folks could own fire arms without any infringement. Not so today. Not in the least.
In both of these cases, Constitutional scholars disagree vehemently as to how these texts should be interpreted. They parse and define words to suit their own particular points of view, and leave many scratching their heads as to how such interpretations are arrived at.
How does such a thing happen?
In a word: postmodernism. Rooted and grounded in Nietzsche's philosophy (reason taken to its ultimate, logical conclusion), postmodernity has removed any sort of transcendent, overarching narrative which joins any culture or people together. It removed any shared definition of words and stories. Everything now hinges upon perspective. You see something from one particular point of view. I see it from another, and who is to say who is correct? Who is to say whose interpretation is true? If you even think to know the Truth, then you are arrogant and wishful.
This train of thought has seeped into our culture and infected it. Yes, I used the term infected purposely for perspectivism leads down a dark road--a very dark one. For there can be no agreed upon definition of good. There can be no agreed upon definition of evil. There can be no agreed upon definition of justice. Ultimately, it is the ones who are in power who call the shots and define the terms as they see fit. And if you wish to rise up, you may. However, make sure you are strong enough and powerful enough to overthrow those in power. For in the end, only might makes right.
You might think me jesting in such commentary, but allow me to take us to Ferguson, MO for just a moment and to the aftermath of the grand jury's decision. Let us visit the riots and looting and burning of local businesses.
Who of us if walking into one of these stores broke windows and doors and took merchandise would not be guilty of burglary? Who of us would not stand accused and arrested if caught? Many would consider our actions wrong for they violate the law.
But were there those excusing such behavior? Were there those defending those who did such things appealing to extraneous circumstances? Yes. So that which is wrong wasn't necessarily as wrong as once thought because of the reasons behind the looting and rioting and burning.
Right isn't necessarily right.
Wrong isn't necessarily wrong.
It just depends upon where you sit and from what perspective you view the events.
And yet, there is the cry for justice? Will the shop owners get justice? Or is justice the crowd's burning of those shops? Tell me. Please. Inquiring minds want to know.
Until we can begin to arrive at a place where we share definitions...
Until we can arrive at a place where we have an understanding of right and wrong...
Until we can arrive at a place where we have an agreed understanding of justice...
Your protests are meaningless!! They will not change anything!!!
But it is not enough simply to point out that which is wrong. Alternatives must be offered. I point toward C.S. Lewis as a starting place.
C.S. Lewis in his book the Abolition of Man includes the following allegory about his own journey to Christianity. During that journey Lewis was "captured" by the Spirit of the Age. Here is what Lewis writes:
Are we willing to point out the lies and the foolishness of those who want to lead us down paths of relativism? Are we willing to challenge those who say there is no transcendence? Are we willing to say unequivocally, "There is such a thing as Justice! There is such a thing as Truth!"
Of course, you might say, "Isn't this an arrogant sort of approach? Are you telling me that you have the Truth?"
No. I don't. But I think the late Dallas Willard was onto something when he said, "Truth in belief and idea is, in a certain respect, similar to the sighting mechanism on a gun or rocket: if correctly used it enables us to hit what we hope to. But in truth's case we need not see what we are aiming at. Truth and the meaning upon which it rests takes care of the aim itself."
I am not certain we relish a search for Truth. I am not certain we are willing to argue it passionately and vehemently anymore. In the name of tolerance, we have pushed the quest for Truth to the back burners and decided should accept the idea of truths. It won't work. Not now. Not in the long run. Without any semblance of Truth, we will never have Justice. Remember that as you protest.
The Michael Brown case in Ferguson, MO
The Eric Garner case in Staten Island, NY
The Tamir Rice case in Cleveland, OH
In two cases, grand juries did not issue indictments against the police officers. We are still waiting on the third.
People are angry. Some of them justifiably. They are taking to the streets; to the schools; to colleges and universities; and other arenas to voice their displeasure with the system and call for change and justice.
Good luck.
As the Occupy Movement I think has discovered, so will these: no real change will be forthcoming. There will be no justice.
Why do I say such a thing?
It's not because I am a pessimist. It's not necessarily because I am a realist. It's because I don't think we have a shared agreement of what justice is. We are a nation that is floating and adrift because we no longer have shared understandings about what words mean. We have lost any sense of transcendent meaning. We have no idea what Justice--with a capital J--means. We have lost any sense of what is ultimately right and what is ultimately wrong, and you cannot have Justice without knowing what is right and what is wrong.
We live in a society where we parse words and sayings, take them out of context, and mold them and shape them to suit our own understandings and definitions. We twist things to suit our own particular motivations and agendas. In doing so, we can excuse certain behaviors and actions that blatantly contradict the law.
For instance, the U.S. Constitution Bill of Rights is explicit in Amendment 4:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Try to cite it as you go through an airport. Is it "reasonable" to search every single person who boards a plane? Think about it. If you question being searched, you will be detained--possibly arrested, certainly inconvenienced.
Amendment 2
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
For the better part of the history of our nation, this was an assurance that folks could own fire arms without any infringement. Not so today. Not in the least.
In both of these cases, Constitutional scholars disagree vehemently as to how these texts should be interpreted. They parse and define words to suit their own particular points of view, and leave many scratching their heads as to how such interpretations are arrived at.
How does such a thing happen?
In a word: postmodernism. Rooted and grounded in Nietzsche's philosophy (reason taken to its ultimate, logical conclusion), postmodernity has removed any sort of transcendent, overarching narrative which joins any culture or people together. It removed any shared definition of words and stories. Everything now hinges upon perspective. You see something from one particular point of view. I see it from another, and who is to say who is correct? Who is to say whose interpretation is true? If you even think to know the Truth, then you are arrogant and wishful.
This train of thought has seeped into our culture and infected it. Yes, I used the term infected purposely for perspectivism leads down a dark road--a very dark one. For there can be no agreed upon definition of good. There can be no agreed upon definition of evil. There can be no agreed upon definition of justice. Ultimately, it is the ones who are in power who call the shots and define the terms as they see fit. And if you wish to rise up, you may. However, make sure you are strong enough and powerful enough to overthrow those in power. For in the end, only might makes right.
You might think me jesting in such commentary, but allow me to take us to Ferguson, MO for just a moment and to the aftermath of the grand jury's decision. Let us visit the riots and looting and burning of local businesses.
Who of us if walking into one of these stores broke windows and doors and took merchandise would not be guilty of burglary? Who of us would not stand accused and arrested if caught? Many would consider our actions wrong for they violate the law.
But were there those excusing such behavior? Were there those defending those who did such things appealing to extraneous circumstances? Yes. So that which is wrong wasn't necessarily as wrong as once thought because of the reasons behind the looting and rioting and burning.
Right isn't necessarily right.
Wrong isn't necessarily wrong.
It just depends upon where you sit and from what perspective you view the events.
And yet, there is the cry for justice? Will the shop owners get justice? Or is justice the crowd's burning of those shops? Tell me. Please. Inquiring minds want to know.
Until we can begin to arrive at a place where we share definitions...
Until we can arrive at a place where we have an understanding of right and wrong...
Until we can arrive at a place where we have an agreed understanding of justice...
Your protests are meaningless!! They will not change anything!!!
But it is not enough simply to point out that which is wrong. Alternatives must be offered. I point toward C.S. Lewis as a starting place.
C.S. Lewis in his book the Abolition of Man includes the following allegory about his own journey to Christianity. During that journey Lewis was "captured" by the Spirit of the Age. Here is what Lewis writes:
Every day a jailor brought the prisoners their food, and as he laid down the dishes he would say a word to them. If their meal was flesh, he would remind them that they were eating corpses, or give them some account of the slaughtering: or, if it was the inwards of some beast, he would read them a lecture in anatomy and show the likeness of the mess to the same parts in themselves...Or if the meal were eggs, he would recall to them that they were eating the menstruum of a verminous fowl, and crack a few jokes with the female prisoner. So he went on day by day. Then I dreamed that one day there was nothing but milk for them, and the jailor said as he put down the pipkin:
'Our relations with the cow are not delicate--as you can easily see if you imagine eating any of her other secretions.'
Now John had been in the pit a shorter time than any of the others: and at these words something seemed to snap in his head and he gave a great sigh and suddenly spoke out in a loud, clear voice:
'Thank heaven! Now at last I know that you are talking nonsense.'
'What do you mean?' said the jailor, wheeling round upon him.
'You are trying to pretend that unlike things are like. You are trying to make us think that milk is the same sort of thing as sweat or dung.'
'And pray, what difference is there except by custom?'
'Are you a liar or a fool, that you see no difference between that which Nature casts out as refuse and that which she stores up as food?'
'So Nature is a person, then, with purposes and consciousness,' said the jailor with a sneer. 'In fact, a Landlady. No doubt it comforts you to imagine you can believe that sort of thing;' and he turned to leave the prison with his nose in the air.
'I know nothing about that,' shouted John after him. 'I am talking of what happens. Milk does feed calves and dung does not.'
Are we willing to point out the lies and the foolishness of those who want to lead us down paths of relativism? Are we willing to challenge those who say there is no transcendence? Are we willing to say unequivocally, "There is such a thing as Justice! There is such a thing as Truth!"
Of course, you might say, "Isn't this an arrogant sort of approach? Are you telling me that you have the Truth?"
No. I don't. But I think the late Dallas Willard was onto something when he said, "Truth in belief and idea is, in a certain respect, similar to the sighting mechanism on a gun or rocket: if correctly used it enables us to hit what we hope to. But in truth's case we need not see what we are aiming at. Truth and the meaning upon which it rests takes care of the aim itself."
I am not certain we relish a search for Truth. I am not certain we are willing to argue it passionately and vehemently anymore. In the name of tolerance, we have pushed the quest for Truth to the back burners and decided should accept the idea of truths. It won't work. Not now. Not in the long run. Without any semblance of Truth, we will never have Justice. Remember that as you protest.
Tuesday, December 9, 2014
Why Change?
Ismael commented on my last sermon, and he asked a very good question:
If I'm doing good and helping other people causing as little harm as I can... why to change?
Why indeed?
Of course, the simple answer is, one shouldn't. I mean, I think we should all do good and cause as little harm as possible.
But let's delve a little bit deeper. First, let me ask: what is good? How do you know what is good? What is bad? What is indifferent?
Do you judge it based upon a particular outcome or the results? Do the ends justify the means?
Do you judge something to be good because there is such a thing as intrinsic good and intrinsic worth?
If there is no God and no transcendent reality, then there is no such thing as intrinsic worth and intrinsic goodness. That which is good or that which is bad is only a matter of perspective. (Nietzsche) I have seen a few attempts to argue for transcendence (Luc Ferry, A Brief History of Thought), but I think they fail to establish any sort of true argument for something beyond; or in other words to get to an "ought" from "is".
And if there is no way to establish something good because it is necessarily good by definition, then one is almost forced to enter into teleological ethics. (The end result is the most important.) Of course, teleological ethics rests on the premise that we should do the greatest good for the greatest number, but why should that be the case? What grounds do you have for suggesting that this ought to govern our thought? (That is the first problem.) The second problem comes when the greatest good for the greatest number adversely affects the minority. It was the greatest good for the greatest number to have slaves do all the agricultural work in the U.S. 200+ years ago. It was not good for the slaves themselves, of course; but what recourse do you have for proposing that things should change? The arguments against slavery all came from establishing the fact that slaves were people who had intrinsic value and worth and should not be claimed as property. It was an appeal, not to the greater good, but to the Greatest Good--transcendent goodness.
We could probably spend more time arguing this point, but I will not belabor it any longer. Ismael agreed with much of what I said in my sermon by his own admission in regards to transcendence and ethics. Therefore, I will move on to the next issue--the issue of motivation.
Why does one engage in doing good and limiting the amount of harm caused? If one is not engaged in doing good because something is inherently good (there is no transcendence), then essentially there are two motivations for doing good: 1) I like doing good and feel like what I am doing is good. 2) The other person needs me to do something for them, and I do it for their sake.
#1, I think we can agree is selfish motivation. If I am pursuing good because of how it makes me feel, then I am engaging in it because I get a certain benefit from it. I feel better about myself. I feel good about what I have done and accomplished.
One may ask: what is wrong with this?
Nothing, to begin with. The problem comes when others do not share your vision of what is good. If I am a tolerant person who believes in allowing folks freedom to do things, then (by definition) I must also be tolerant of those who are intolerant. Rarely does anyone do this. In fact, those who preach tolerance are oftentimes vehemently opposed to those they deem intolerant. They become just as self-righteous as those whom they deem intolerant! Examples abound of this throughout the blogosphere. One will suffice.
Before the ELCA website Living Lutheran changed its format and did away with comments, a very interesting exchange took place in a discussion over the ELCA's change to allow practicing homosexual clergy. "Michael", a proponent of the change, adamantly defended the church's new position by saying, "If there are those in the church who don't like the decision, then they can just find another church." Do you see the hypocrisy in the statement? For if "those in the church who do not like the decision" should just find another church, then why didn't "Michael" do so when the church held the opposite position previously? Why did "Michael" and others who fought for change simply leave previously? Answer: Self-righteousness. It pervades our churches and our society. Why?
This is the inevitable outcome of doing things for one's self. It becomes all about me, and I become self-righteous, narcissistic, and I even use others to accomplish what I want, convinced I am doing good. (I do not say such things as someone who is immune from this. I have been there, done that in a real way and am in a constant battle with my self-righteous, self-centered self.)
#2, might not seem to be such a bad thing. I mean, we should do good to others for their sake and not our own. We should be sensitive to their needs and concerns and do our best to ease their suffering. There doesn't seem to be a downside to this one.
On the surface.
But as one who has experienced such things; as one who works in a helping profession, I can say quite honestly, if you live for others and try to satisfy their needs and ease their sufferings, you will burn out. There is not enough of you to go around. Plus, you will run into someone who does not have any boundaries who will literally suck you dry and take every ounce of energy you have.
You will strive to live up to their expectations and their needs, and you will eventually fall. Evidence abounds for this among care-givers. Not only will you burn out, but you will spend your entire life seeking your value and worth from others. You will desperately want to hear their affirmation. You will desperately want to receive their pats on the back. And when such things are not forthcoming, you will fall deeply into despair. It is not a pleasant place to be.
Now, here is where things get interesting because one could argue for a third option. One could "change one's mind" --remember, we are not talking about changing one's actions because I think we can agree that the actions of doing good and helping others are laudable--and say, "I neither act for myself nor act for others. I seek to do good because there is an ultimate Good."
For the sake of this blog post, I will call that ultimate Good, God. Why? Well, if there is an ultimate Good--an ultimate sense of what is right and what is wrong--then that had to come from somewhere. We didn't make it up. If we did, we are right back to perspectivism and Nietzsche. If there is a natural law of what is right and wrong, then it is logical to assume a Law Giver--an ultimate Good. (C.S. Lewis develops this argument much more fully in Mere Christianity.)
Now, I must ask myself whether or not I achieve that ultimate Good? Do I accomplish the good I need? Do I do a reasonable enough job of accomplishing enough good and easing the suffering of others? Do I fulfill this sense of the natural law that I find inherent in nature?
I think, if we are honest with ourselves, we know that we do not. We know that we do not ease the suffering of others as much as we could. Most of the time, we give out of our abundance--where it doesn't affect our lifestyle or our ability to do the things that we want to do. We give as long as we are comfortable. We ease the sufferings of others as long as we don't feel put out by it. We enjoy the fruits of others' labor even if that labor cost someone else dearly. At the very least, we are contributors to the brokenness and injustice of this world. We do not live up to that natural law.
One may choose to argue this point, so let me delve into it just a little further. C.S. Lewis showed in his book The Abolition of Man, that nearly every culture and philosophy shared the common axiom "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Nearly everyone I know believes this axiom should be followed. Some folks do relatively well in sticking to it, but not fully. How so? Well, if I am going to do unto others as I would have them do unto me, then if I were poor and hungry, then I would want folks to help me out whenever I was in this state. I would desire them to give me enough that I might be able to have the necessities of life. Perhaps an individual would not be able to give me enough to sustain me, but through a collective effort, I would have enough. This would mean, that if I had enough, I would give a little bit to every poor person I encounter. I would willingly and graciously give to everyone who begged, even if it were a trifle amount. The question is: do I do so? Do I give even a little bit to everyone who begs from me--who believes him or her self poor and in need? Regardless if I do not think they are in need, do I still give because the other believes he or she is in need? Does anyone fulfill this to the extent of what is required? Short answer: no.
So, where does that leave us in relationship to the Law Giver? If we are not fulfilling the Law to the extent necessary, where does that leave us? If we have no sense of shame or guilt, then it leaves us exactly nowhere. I can simply go about my life thinking I am good enough even if I don't follow the universal axioms. I can convince myself that I'm doing my part and should be satisfied with doing that part even if it isn't the fullest extent of what I can do. If you find yourself in this category, then I simply make one observation: you cannot judge another person ever. You cannot make any sort of moral judgement or statement about the beliefs and practices of another for you have no moral high ground to operate from. You cannot tell anyone "you should do unto others" because you are not following the axiom yourself, and you must be content with what others choose to do and allow them to be just as satisfied with the job they believe they are doing as you are satisfied with yours.
But if I know that I do not follow the axiom to the extent it needs to be followed, and if I have a sense of shame and guilt about this, then I know I need to do something to rectify the situation. I need to somehow make amends for not following through in doing what I know I am supposed to do. I need to make things right within myself and with the Law Giver. And how do I do that?
Every other religion and philosophy says, "Try harder." "Do more." "Overcome your selfish nature by your own strength."
The problem is, we cannot. Why? Well, first off, we are acting in our own self-interest when we do such things. We are not acting in the interest of others or in the interest of the Greatest Good. Our self is at the center, and we will head right down the path of self-righteousness. Secondly, even when we try harder, we still will not accomplish the extent of following the axioms. "Do unto others..." If I followed this to the extent necessary, I would exhaust my resources and then be dependent upon others to give to me. In a perfect world, that might work out, but we do not live in a perfect world... History is replete with folks who say try harder, and time and again, it doesn't work out.
Only Christianity offers an alternative. Only Christianity says, "You cannot make amends for your failure to follow the axioms of the Law Giver. You cannot overcome your guilt and shame by trying harder. You cannot walk a path that will not lead to self-righteousness or to self-destruction on your own. You will either be dominated by self or be dominated by others. Therefore, since you do not have the ability to change and overcome; since you cannot break out of this reality, the Law Giver will act to change the situation."
And the Word became flesh and lived among us...
God took on flesh and lived among us, not to take advantage of us (as in many of the Greek and Roman myths), but to die for us.
In no other religion or philosophy does God die on behalf of His creation. Only Christianity. (There is much, much more to it than this. Books have been written explaining this further. I am trying to condense it into a very small blog post, and I am just not doing it justice!!!)
And Christianity says, "To the extent you believe in what God has done for you, you will be able to overcome your selfish nature and accomplish following the great commands; not because you have to or because your self-worth or satisfaction or salvation depends upon it, but because you are thankful for what has been done on your behalf."
It is a radical departure from every other train of thought, and it is either crazy because it goes against the way the world works, or it is brilliant because its origins do not originate in the way the world actually works.
And it is this last point which leads me to say this is why one should change. For in Jesus we find a path that does not lead to self-righteousness (it can't because we have to acknowledge our inability to follow the universal axioms). Neither does it lead to destruction of self through trying to please others (for we do not get our value and worth from pleasing others and doing all the right things). It also answers how we are justified in not following the universal law or axioms (not by our own action but by the action of the Law Giver), and frees us from the guilt and shame of not fulfilling what we know we should do. And last, it gives us the ability to point to what we ought to do because the Laws are still in effect--they are our guide in right and wrong, but we point to them in humility not in arrogance.
(If you would like to delve into this more, I highly recommend C.S. Lewis' book Mere Christianity and Timothy Keller's book The Reason for God. I cannot even come close to doing justice to what these apologists have done in explaining the Christian faith.)
If I'm doing good and helping other people causing as little harm as I can... why to change?
Why indeed?
Of course, the simple answer is, one shouldn't. I mean, I think we should all do good and cause as little harm as possible.
But let's delve a little bit deeper. First, let me ask: what is good? How do you know what is good? What is bad? What is indifferent?
Do you judge it based upon a particular outcome or the results? Do the ends justify the means?
Do you judge something to be good because there is such a thing as intrinsic good and intrinsic worth?
If there is no God and no transcendent reality, then there is no such thing as intrinsic worth and intrinsic goodness. That which is good or that which is bad is only a matter of perspective. (Nietzsche) I have seen a few attempts to argue for transcendence (Luc Ferry, A Brief History of Thought), but I think they fail to establish any sort of true argument for something beyond; or in other words to get to an "ought" from "is".
And if there is no way to establish something good because it is necessarily good by definition, then one is almost forced to enter into teleological ethics. (The end result is the most important.) Of course, teleological ethics rests on the premise that we should do the greatest good for the greatest number, but why should that be the case? What grounds do you have for suggesting that this ought to govern our thought? (That is the first problem.) The second problem comes when the greatest good for the greatest number adversely affects the minority. It was the greatest good for the greatest number to have slaves do all the agricultural work in the U.S. 200+ years ago. It was not good for the slaves themselves, of course; but what recourse do you have for proposing that things should change? The arguments against slavery all came from establishing the fact that slaves were people who had intrinsic value and worth and should not be claimed as property. It was an appeal, not to the greater good, but to the Greatest Good--transcendent goodness.
We could probably spend more time arguing this point, but I will not belabor it any longer. Ismael agreed with much of what I said in my sermon by his own admission in regards to transcendence and ethics. Therefore, I will move on to the next issue--the issue of motivation.
Why does one engage in doing good and limiting the amount of harm caused? If one is not engaged in doing good because something is inherently good (there is no transcendence), then essentially there are two motivations for doing good: 1) I like doing good and feel like what I am doing is good. 2) The other person needs me to do something for them, and I do it for their sake.
#1, I think we can agree is selfish motivation. If I am pursuing good because of how it makes me feel, then I am engaging in it because I get a certain benefit from it. I feel better about myself. I feel good about what I have done and accomplished.
One may ask: what is wrong with this?
Nothing, to begin with. The problem comes when others do not share your vision of what is good. If I am a tolerant person who believes in allowing folks freedom to do things, then (by definition) I must also be tolerant of those who are intolerant. Rarely does anyone do this. In fact, those who preach tolerance are oftentimes vehemently opposed to those they deem intolerant. They become just as self-righteous as those whom they deem intolerant! Examples abound of this throughout the blogosphere. One will suffice.
Before the ELCA website Living Lutheran changed its format and did away with comments, a very interesting exchange took place in a discussion over the ELCA's change to allow practicing homosexual clergy. "Michael", a proponent of the change, adamantly defended the church's new position by saying, "If there are those in the church who don't like the decision, then they can just find another church." Do you see the hypocrisy in the statement? For if "those in the church who do not like the decision" should just find another church, then why didn't "Michael" do so when the church held the opposite position previously? Why did "Michael" and others who fought for change simply leave previously? Answer: Self-righteousness. It pervades our churches and our society. Why?
This is the inevitable outcome of doing things for one's self. It becomes all about me, and I become self-righteous, narcissistic, and I even use others to accomplish what I want, convinced I am doing good. (I do not say such things as someone who is immune from this. I have been there, done that in a real way and am in a constant battle with my self-righteous, self-centered self.)
#2, might not seem to be such a bad thing. I mean, we should do good to others for their sake and not our own. We should be sensitive to their needs and concerns and do our best to ease their suffering. There doesn't seem to be a downside to this one.
On the surface.
But as one who has experienced such things; as one who works in a helping profession, I can say quite honestly, if you live for others and try to satisfy their needs and ease their sufferings, you will burn out. There is not enough of you to go around. Plus, you will run into someone who does not have any boundaries who will literally suck you dry and take every ounce of energy you have.
You will strive to live up to their expectations and their needs, and you will eventually fall. Evidence abounds for this among care-givers. Not only will you burn out, but you will spend your entire life seeking your value and worth from others. You will desperately want to hear their affirmation. You will desperately want to receive their pats on the back. And when such things are not forthcoming, you will fall deeply into despair. It is not a pleasant place to be.
Now, here is where things get interesting because one could argue for a third option. One could "change one's mind" --remember, we are not talking about changing one's actions because I think we can agree that the actions of doing good and helping others are laudable--and say, "I neither act for myself nor act for others. I seek to do good because there is an ultimate Good."
For the sake of this blog post, I will call that ultimate Good, God. Why? Well, if there is an ultimate Good--an ultimate sense of what is right and what is wrong--then that had to come from somewhere. We didn't make it up. If we did, we are right back to perspectivism and Nietzsche. If there is a natural law of what is right and wrong, then it is logical to assume a Law Giver--an ultimate Good. (C.S. Lewis develops this argument much more fully in Mere Christianity.)
Now, I must ask myself whether or not I achieve that ultimate Good? Do I accomplish the good I need? Do I do a reasonable enough job of accomplishing enough good and easing the suffering of others? Do I fulfill this sense of the natural law that I find inherent in nature?
I think, if we are honest with ourselves, we know that we do not. We know that we do not ease the suffering of others as much as we could. Most of the time, we give out of our abundance--where it doesn't affect our lifestyle or our ability to do the things that we want to do. We give as long as we are comfortable. We ease the sufferings of others as long as we don't feel put out by it. We enjoy the fruits of others' labor even if that labor cost someone else dearly. At the very least, we are contributors to the brokenness and injustice of this world. We do not live up to that natural law.
One may choose to argue this point, so let me delve into it just a little further. C.S. Lewis showed in his book The Abolition of Man, that nearly every culture and philosophy shared the common axiom "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Nearly everyone I know believes this axiom should be followed. Some folks do relatively well in sticking to it, but not fully. How so? Well, if I am going to do unto others as I would have them do unto me, then if I were poor and hungry, then I would want folks to help me out whenever I was in this state. I would desire them to give me enough that I might be able to have the necessities of life. Perhaps an individual would not be able to give me enough to sustain me, but through a collective effort, I would have enough. This would mean, that if I had enough, I would give a little bit to every poor person I encounter. I would willingly and graciously give to everyone who begged, even if it were a trifle amount. The question is: do I do so? Do I give even a little bit to everyone who begs from me--who believes him or her self poor and in need? Regardless if I do not think they are in need, do I still give because the other believes he or she is in need? Does anyone fulfill this to the extent of what is required? Short answer: no.
So, where does that leave us in relationship to the Law Giver? If we are not fulfilling the Law to the extent necessary, where does that leave us? If we have no sense of shame or guilt, then it leaves us exactly nowhere. I can simply go about my life thinking I am good enough even if I don't follow the universal axioms. I can convince myself that I'm doing my part and should be satisfied with doing that part even if it isn't the fullest extent of what I can do. If you find yourself in this category, then I simply make one observation: you cannot judge another person ever. You cannot make any sort of moral judgement or statement about the beliefs and practices of another for you have no moral high ground to operate from. You cannot tell anyone "you should do unto others" because you are not following the axiom yourself, and you must be content with what others choose to do and allow them to be just as satisfied with the job they believe they are doing as you are satisfied with yours.
But if I know that I do not follow the axiom to the extent it needs to be followed, and if I have a sense of shame and guilt about this, then I know I need to do something to rectify the situation. I need to somehow make amends for not following through in doing what I know I am supposed to do. I need to make things right within myself and with the Law Giver. And how do I do that?
Every other religion and philosophy says, "Try harder." "Do more." "Overcome your selfish nature by your own strength."
The problem is, we cannot. Why? Well, first off, we are acting in our own self-interest when we do such things. We are not acting in the interest of others or in the interest of the Greatest Good. Our self is at the center, and we will head right down the path of self-righteousness. Secondly, even when we try harder, we still will not accomplish the extent of following the axioms. "Do unto others..." If I followed this to the extent necessary, I would exhaust my resources and then be dependent upon others to give to me. In a perfect world, that might work out, but we do not live in a perfect world... History is replete with folks who say try harder, and time and again, it doesn't work out.
Only Christianity offers an alternative. Only Christianity says, "You cannot make amends for your failure to follow the axioms of the Law Giver. You cannot overcome your guilt and shame by trying harder. You cannot walk a path that will not lead to self-righteousness or to self-destruction on your own. You will either be dominated by self or be dominated by others. Therefore, since you do not have the ability to change and overcome; since you cannot break out of this reality, the Law Giver will act to change the situation."
And the Word became flesh and lived among us...
God took on flesh and lived among us, not to take advantage of us (as in many of the Greek and Roman myths), but to die for us.
In no other religion or philosophy does God die on behalf of His creation. Only Christianity. (There is much, much more to it than this. Books have been written explaining this further. I am trying to condense it into a very small blog post, and I am just not doing it justice!!!)
And Christianity says, "To the extent you believe in what God has done for you, you will be able to overcome your selfish nature and accomplish following the great commands; not because you have to or because your self-worth or satisfaction or salvation depends upon it, but because you are thankful for what has been done on your behalf."
It is a radical departure from every other train of thought, and it is either crazy because it goes against the way the world works, or it is brilliant because its origins do not originate in the way the world actually works.
And it is this last point which leads me to say this is why one should change. For in Jesus we find a path that does not lead to self-righteousness (it can't because we have to acknowledge our inability to follow the universal axioms). Neither does it lead to destruction of self through trying to please others (for we do not get our value and worth from pleasing others and doing all the right things). It also answers how we are justified in not following the universal law or axioms (not by our own action but by the action of the Law Giver), and frees us from the guilt and shame of not fulfilling what we know we should do. And last, it gives us the ability to point to what we ought to do because the Laws are still in effect--they are our guide in right and wrong, but we point to them in humility not in arrogance.
(If you would like to delve into this more, I highly recommend C.S. Lewis' book Mere Christianity and Timothy Keller's book The Reason for God. I cannot even come close to doing justice to what these apologists have done in explaining the Christian faith.)
Monday, November 10, 2014
Your Offerings are Worthless!!
As I begin, I can’t help but wonder how many folks looked at the sermon title this morning and then thought to themselves, “Well, I might as well just put my offering envelope up and save the money I was going to give to the church this morning. How dare anyone put such a title as their sermon?” Before you actually void or tear up that check or put that cash back into your pocket, I hope you will bear with me as we work our way through my sermon this morning. Perhaps you will understand and then, at the end, be even more willing to give than before.
Just over 100 years ago, philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche helped lay the groundwork for many of the ways our current culture acts. I can hear a few of you moaning in your heads right now. “Pastor’s going to get all philosophical and stuff. We will never be able to understand this stuff. We might as well go to sleep right now.” Believe me, I understand. You see, they didn’t have a Nietzsche for dummies book, so I actually had to wade through some of his writings. More than a few times, my eyelids had to work double time to stay open!!
But that is not the point. The point is much more important, one that I hopefully can give you some time to ponder. For you have undoubtedly run across more than one of the consequences of what Nietzsche taught. You have undoubtedly encountered someone who adheres to at least part of his philosophical system. You have undoubtedly run across someone who says, “There is no absolute truth. What is true for you is true for you, but it’s not true for me. That is just your opinion because no one can really know the truth.” You see, Nietzsche proposed that there is no such thing as absolute truth. He proposed that since there is no absolute truth, the concept of the ideal is irrational. There is no such thing as justice. There is no such thing as ultimate kindness. There is no such thing as good. There is no such thing as evil. It is all a matter of one’s perspective. Therefore, if something works for me and is good for me, then I can continue to pursue it–because it is good for me. That it might be bad for you is only a matter of perspective, and it shouldn’t really matter too much to me because there is no ultimate judge of right or wrong.
Are you with me so far? I hope so. I hope you haven’t gotten too lost because the next part is pretty crucial. If there is no right and no wrong, what then is our motivation for doing things? Why do we engage in the things we do or think the things we think? Nietzsche offered up this thought: it is all about power. It is all about how we obtain what we want. It’s all about how we further our own position and basically survive in this world. It’s all about our own self interest, making our self more powerful and ultimately, putting ourselves in the most advantageous position possible. Chew on this for just a second. I mean, really chew on this. Without any sort of transcendence; without any sense of something beyond ourselves; it leads us directly to relativism–no right and no wrong and unbounded self-interest. Do you see how our society today has been impacted by Nietzsche? Do you see how such things infest our culture? If you need any further evidence, I point to this past political cycle and the fallout from this past Tuesday’s election. Have you noticed all the spin put on the results? Each side is trying to manipulate what happened to its own advantage with the goal of obtaining more and more power to accomplish its own agenda. Nietzsche nailed it.
There is a bit of a quibble I have with Nietzsche; however. Nietzsche was famous for stating that “God is dead,” and it was from this starting point–the lack of anything transcendent–that he arrived at the conclusion that everything was all about power and self-interest. I personally don’t believe you need to get rid of God for folks to continue to act in their own self-interest and to engage in all sorts of power plays. Even if one believes there is a God, that person can still do exactly what Nietzsche proposes and try to manipulate things to his or her own advantage. What do I mean by that?
Let’s take a quick walk through our Old Testament reading this morning from the book of Amos. Here’s a little background. Amos was a prophet who was called from shepherding to confront the injustice in Israel. Much like our own situation, the rich were getting richer. The poor were getting poorer. But unlike our situation, there were no programs, no initiatives to help the poor and the needy. They were basically on their own, and they were suffering. The poor were suffering badly.
And Amos holds nothing back. He brings the Word of the Lord with conviction and with words that proved very, very unpopular. “Alas for you who desire the day of the Lord! Why do you want the day of the Lord? It is darkness, not light; 19 as if someone fled from a lion, and was met by a bear; or went into the house and rested a hand against the wall, and was bitten by a snake. 20 Is not the day of the Lord darkness, not light, and gloom with no brightness in it? 21 I hate, I despise your festivals, and I take no delight in your solemn assemblies. 22 Even though you offer me your burnt-offerings and grain-offerings, I will not accept them; and the offerings of well-being of your fatted animals I will not look upon. 23 Take away from me the noise of your songs; I will not listen to the melody of your harps.”
Let’s work our way through these verses. I will come back to the day of the Lord stuff momentarily because it is important. But before I do that, let’s concentrate on what Amos says about the peoples’ offerings and their worship. See, my sermon title doesn’t come from me: it comes directly from Amos. The Lord says, “I hate your festivals. I will not accept your offerings–they are worthless. I do not want to hear your worship.” Why? Why is God saying such things? Some point to the next verse to bring it all to a close. God doesn’t want offerings. God doesn’t want worship. God doesn’t want festivals and assemblies. Instead God wants justice to flow like a mighty water and righteousness to flow like an ever flowing stream. This is what really counts. This what is really important. So, go out and do justice. Go out and make righteousness happen. Sermon is over. Be happy it is shorter than normal! (Psyche!)
Let’s re-think this for a moment. Because God commanded festivals and solemn assemblies in the Law. God commanded the people to bring Him offerings. The Law is explicit about this too. God also commanded the people to worship Him. These are things that God wants!! So why is He rejecting them? Why does He say He hates them?
Let me illustrate it this way. I remember vividly growing up as a kid. More than once I heard one of my friends say, “It doesn’t matter that I am going out drinking this weekend. I’m going to go to confession, and it will all be forgiven.” Or, “It doesn’t matter if I’m having sex with this girl. I’m going to confession, and it will be forgiven.” Hearing folks say this always bugged me. It didn’t seem right. And it’s not. Why?
This is why: because by doing the rites and rituals, the folks who said this believed they were making a claim on God. They believed that if they just did the proper things–offered the appropriate worship; offerings; or confessions, then God would have to forgive them. Essentially, they were saying, “God, I know you really don’t want me to do those other things, but you said I would be forgiven if I did x, y, and z. I’ve done x, y, and z, so you cannot be mad at me. You cannot punish me. I’ve jumped through your hoops, so you have to forgive me.”
Let me stop for just a second and see if you can see how this is a power play. Can you see how this serves a person’s self interest? Can you see how this is ultimately about getting the better of God? Can you see how this is not focused upon God and what God wants but is focused upon what I want and how I can obtain what I want without any consequences?
And this stuff was going on long before Nietzsche penned his works. It’s exactly what the Israelites were doing. They were disobeying God’s law. They were not letting justice flow like mighty waters. They were not letting righteousness flow like ever flowing streams. They were abusing and using the poor. They were trampling them underfoot and destroying them. They were padding their bank accounts at the expense of others and laughing at how blessed they were. And then they would go to the temple and offer their sacrifices. They would chant their prayers. They would sing their songs. They would make their offerings convinced they had done their duty and God would love them and bless them because they had given God what He wanted. They’d satisfied Him by their worship and offerings and sacrifices. They were good to go. They’d done their duty.
And God says, “I hate, I despise your assemblies. I hate, I despise your offerings and do not accept them. I hate, I despise your singing and your worship.” Why? Because the people are trying to make a power play on God. They are trying to have their cake and eat it too. They are thinking that by worship and sacrifice and offering, they can excuse their behavior even though they know it’s wrong.
And they are looking forward to the Day of the Lord–yes, the day when God comes to restore everything to the way it should be and justice will be meted out. They are looking forward to this day thinking they will have a grand time because they’ve worshiped; they’ve put their money in the plate; they should be good to go. But God says, “Think again. You have not even come close to satisfying my demands. You have only and have ever only looked out for yourself. My wrath will burn against you. Why do you want the Day of the Lord. It will be darkness not light!”
Scary stuff. Very scary stuff. And so, what do we do about this? Do we stop here and think, “Wow! I hear what Amos is saying. Our offerings; our worship; our singing; all of it is for naught. We need to stop this stuff right now, and we need to go out and do justice. We need to work for righteousness. We need to throw ourselves into these things because the Lord demands this of us.”
Stop right there. Stop right there and think about where you are headed with this train of thought. For if you think that you will satisfy God by doing justice and making righteousness flow like an ever flowing stream, what are you doing? Or better yet, why are you doing it? If you are scared that your offerings aren’t satisfying God and that you need to throw yourself at doing justice because that is what God requires, then I’d submit to you that you are attempting your own power play. You are attempting to satisfy God with your actions once again and save yourself from the coming wrath. You are not focused on God, you are once again focused on yourself and your own best interests. I’m doing what God commands because I don’t want to face the darkness on the day of the Lord. We are right back to Nietzsche.
Can anything break us out of this self-centeredness? Can anything get us away from focusing on ourselves?
How about this?
For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son so that all who believe in Him should not perish but have eternal life. For God sent the Son into the world not to condemn the world, but that the world may be saved through Him.
You knew I was going to get to Jesus somehow. At least I hope you knew I was going to get to Jesus. For you see, Jesus is the one who acted completely the opposite of what Nietzsche proposed. Instead of seeking His own self-interest; instead of seeking His own power; Jesus sought to fulfill the will of the Father. Jesus sought complete obedience to the one He was equal to. Jesus sought to become powerless even though He had access to absolute power. And instead of kingdoms, Jesus found the cross where He endured the wrath meant for us. He became the blameless offering and sacrifice to end all offerings and sacrifices. There was no longer any need to offer sacrifices of atonement to get ourselves right with God. All was accomplished by Jesus.
And that completely changes things for us. No longer do we have to worry about a power play
with God. We do not have to seek to save ourselves and act with self interest. We can seek God and His righteousness for His sake and not our own. We can seek to let justice flow like a mighty water and righteousness flow like an ever flowing stream not because this is what God demands lest we be punished, but because we know it is something near and dear to God’s heart, and in thankfulness we wish to please the one who acted on our behalf. We gladly lift up our voices in praise and worship not because it’s going to affect our salvation, but in joyful thanksgiving that our salvation has already been accomplished. We give our offerings of time and talent and money not to satisfy the commandment, but to show our gratitude to the God who took on human flesh and died for us. And we now await the coming Day of the Lord with joyful expectation. We no longer have to save ourselves. We no longer have to worry about whether or not we have done enough good; or worshiped enough; or gave enough. Jesus already gave it all. Amen.
Wednesday, August 13, 2014
Russell Brand, Robin Williams, and the Gospel
I was not going to comment about Robin Williams' suicide. Many have, and I have nothing to add to their commentary. Much of what has been shown to me on my Facebook feed has been relatively well thought out, but none of it truly made me think deeply.
Leave it to the Drudge Report to link an article in The Guardian written by Russell Brand. This article truly drew me in and made me wrestle because it links Williams' death with some of the big questions in life.
I didn't know much about Brand until I read his Wikipedia page--assuming Wikipedia is reliable here. I found out he and Williams shared much in common. Both are/were very much tortured souls. Both, I think, struggle/d with some very tough questions regarding life. From the article:
It is quite intriguing that Brand answers such questions in three ways: two in his article and one in his show. 1. Escaping by watching movies which have messages. To enter stories. 2. To be nice to people mindful of our fragility and delicate nature. 3. Worshiping sexuality.
Unfortunately, none of these things satisfy. None of them. Show me one person who has had their hunger filled by entering into story after story after story and/or watching movie after movie after movie.
Show me one person who has become satisfied with being nice to people.
Show me one person who has become satisfied with having as many sexual encounters as possible.
They do not exist. None of these things brings satisfaction, and they all lead to hopelessness. There is always another story; another person who needs to receive some niceness; another encounter to be had. There is always a desire which finds temporary fulfillment, but defies satisfaction. If you place your self-worth in such things, you will only find disappointment.
But such things are the default setting for humankind. These are the things we automatically search for. Brand asks who benefits from this system? (I'd not call it a system; I'd call it our selfish-nature.) We all do. We all seek our own benefit. We all seek our own will to power as Nietzsche called it. Our selfish gene dominates as Richard Dawkins would say. And our selfish gene does not become satisfied. Our will to power is never quenched. And if that will to power is threatened; if our selfish gene becomes thwarted as our false idols crumble, what happens?
Despair.
Anger.
Frustration.
Hopelessness.
Escapism.
Depression.
What can bring satisfaction? What can lead us away from the desires for our own will to power? What can pound the selfish gene into submission so that it cannot dominate others or be easily exploited?
Only the Gospel.
Only God's action through Jesus Christ.
I have gone through this train of thought numerous times in this blog and in my more recent sermons. I never realized just how the Gospel truly is the hope of humanity as I was caught up in my own will to power; my own selfishness. I know I was on the path to despair and even hit a bit of depression. The Gospel changed all that.
I know Robin Williams was a Christian, but I don't know if he grasped the power of the Gospel. In his comedic routines, I'm not sure he did. I think he saw Christianity as a set of rules and regulations. I think Russell Brand does too. In my estimation, this isn't good. It shows a failure on the part of the Church to articulate what God has already done. It shows the Church has been more concerned with advice instead of proclamation.
That proclamation brings lasting change and satisfaction. It brings hope and peace and joy.
These are things much needed by the world. Williams and Brand show us that unequivocally.
Leave it to the Drudge Report to link an article in The Guardian written by Russell Brand. This article truly drew me in and made me wrestle because it links Williams' death with some of the big questions in life.
I didn't know much about Brand until I read his Wikipedia page--assuming Wikipedia is reliable here. I found out he and Williams shared much in common. Both are/were very much tortured souls. Both, I think, struggle/d with some very tough questions regarding life. From the article:
It seems that Robin Williams could not find a context. Is that what drug use is? An attempt to anaesthetise against a reality that constantly knocks against your nerves, like tinfoil on an old school filling, the pang an urgent message to a dormant, truer you.I found an echo of this thinking in his stand up show "God Complex" (warning: raunchy and quite blasphemous) when Brand said the following:
Is it melancholy to think that a world that Robin Williams can’t live in must be broken? To tie this sad event to the overarching misery of our times? No academic would co-sign a theory in which the tumult of our fractured and unhappy planet is causing the inherently hilarious to end their lives, though I did read that suicide among the middle-aged increased inexplicably in 1999 and has been rising ever since. Is it a condition of our era?
...
What platitudes then can we fling along with the listless, insufficient wreaths at the stillness that was once so animated and wired, the silence where the laughter was? That fame and accolades are no defence against mental illness and addiction? That we live in a world that has become so negligent of human values that our brightest lights are extinguishing themselves? That we must be more vigilant, more aware, more grateful, more mindful? That we can’t tarnish this tiny slice of awareness that we share on this sphere amidst the infinite blackness with conflict and hate?
That we must reach inward and outward to the light that is inside all of us? That all around us people are suffering behind masks less interesting than the one Robin Williams wore? Do you have time to tune in to Fox News, to cement your angry views to calcify the certain misery?
What I might do is watch Mrs Doubtfire. Or Dead Poets Society or Good Will Hunting and I might be nice to people, mindful today how fragile we all are, how delicate we are, even when fizzing with divine madness that seems like it will never expire.
Why are they doing this to us? Why are they positioning our heroes in these meaningless landscapes? Why are they creating a cultural malaise in which nothing has nutrition; where our food lacks nutrition; where there's an emptiness in my stomach that can't be filled by drugs or fame or money? Who is it that benefits from this system? Who benefits from us having a void within ourselves that can never be filled? Who is it that claims they can fill this void?
It is quite intriguing that Brand answers such questions in three ways: two in his article and one in his show. 1. Escaping by watching movies which have messages. To enter stories. 2. To be nice to people mindful of our fragility and delicate nature. 3. Worshiping sexuality.
Unfortunately, none of these things satisfy. None of them. Show me one person who has had their hunger filled by entering into story after story after story and/or watching movie after movie after movie.
Show me one person who has become satisfied with being nice to people.
Show me one person who has become satisfied with having as many sexual encounters as possible.
They do not exist. None of these things brings satisfaction, and they all lead to hopelessness. There is always another story; another person who needs to receive some niceness; another encounter to be had. There is always a desire which finds temporary fulfillment, but defies satisfaction. If you place your self-worth in such things, you will only find disappointment.
But such things are the default setting for humankind. These are the things we automatically search for. Brand asks who benefits from this system? (I'd not call it a system; I'd call it our selfish-nature.) We all do. We all seek our own benefit. We all seek our own will to power as Nietzsche called it. Our selfish gene dominates as Richard Dawkins would say. And our selfish gene does not become satisfied. Our will to power is never quenched. And if that will to power is threatened; if our selfish gene becomes thwarted as our false idols crumble, what happens?
Despair.
Anger.
Frustration.
Hopelessness.
Escapism.
Depression.
What can bring satisfaction? What can lead us away from the desires for our own will to power? What can pound the selfish gene into submission so that it cannot dominate others or be easily exploited?
Only the Gospel.
Only God's action through Jesus Christ.
I have gone through this train of thought numerous times in this blog and in my more recent sermons. I never realized just how the Gospel truly is the hope of humanity as I was caught up in my own will to power; my own selfishness. I know I was on the path to despair and even hit a bit of depression. The Gospel changed all that.
I know Robin Williams was a Christian, but I don't know if he grasped the power of the Gospel. In his comedic routines, I'm not sure he did. I think he saw Christianity as a set of rules and regulations. I think Russell Brand does too. In my estimation, this isn't good. It shows a failure on the part of the Church to articulate what God has already done. It shows the Church has been more concerned with advice instead of proclamation.
That proclamation brings lasting change and satisfaction. It brings hope and peace and joy.
These are things much needed by the world. Williams and Brand show us that unequivocally.
Wednesday, January 15, 2014
If Someone Found the Bones of Jesus
Recently I read and heard a few comments regarding whether or not one would continue to be a Christian if "someone found the bones of Jesus."
Interestingly enough, most of the commentary I read/heard said, "I would still be a Christian."
I pondered this deeply.
Would I still consider myself to be a Christian?
No. I wouldn't.
My life would change drastically if I found out that Jesus was not raised from the dead.
I would find a better paying job.
I wouldn't give to the church anymore.
I'd do less giving to help my fellow men.
I wouldn't concern myself so much with what was happening to others. I'd be looking out for myself, my family, and the people I liked.
I wouldn't concern myself as much with trying to be a "better" person.
I know the responding argument. "Don't you want to be a good person for the sake of the good?"
I've read too much.
I've studied too much.
If there is no God, there are no universals. If there is no God, there is no ultimate good. Nietzsche was right. Some folks might want to deny this, but, really it's true. The reality for us--if there is no God--is that we will all end up dust at one point or another. Several billion years from now, the planet will be burned up to a crisp. Whether it happens sooner or later, it matters not. Might as well enjoy life while you are here and indulge. This is all there is.
I'm not the only one who feels this way. St. Paul put it clearly and succinctly in his first letter to the Corinthians:
12 Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say there is no resurrection of the dead? 13If there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised; 14and if Christ has not been raised, then our proclamation has been in vain and your faith has been in vain. 15We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified of God that he raised Christ—whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. 16For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised. 17If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. 18Then those also who have died in Christ have perished. 19If for this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied...
If the dead are not raised,
‘Let us eat and drink,
for tomorrow we die.’
Paul was a realist. He knew what the resurrection meant. It meant everything. Without it, he said the only response was "eat and drink for tomorrow we die."
The resurrection changes everything. Without it, who cares?
Interestingly enough, most of the commentary I read/heard said, "I would still be a Christian."
I pondered this deeply.
Would I still consider myself to be a Christian?
No. I wouldn't.
My life would change drastically if I found out that Jesus was not raised from the dead.
I would find a better paying job.
I wouldn't give to the church anymore.
I'd do less giving to help my fellow men.
I wouldn't concern myself so much with what was happening to others. I'd be looking out for myself, my family, and the people I liked.
I wouldn't concern myself as much with trying to be a "better" person.
I know the responding argument. "Don't you want to be a good person for the sake of the good?"
I've read too much.
I've studied too much.
If there is no God, there are no universals. If there is no God, there is no ultimate good. Nietzsche was right. Some folks might want to deny this, but, really it's true. The reality for us--if there is no God--is that we will all end up dust at one point or another. Several billion years from now, the planet will be burned up to a crisp. Whether it happens sooner or later, it matters not. Might as well enjoy life while you are here and indulge. This is all there is.
I'm not the only one who feels this way. St. Paul put it clearly and succinctly in his first letter to the Corinthians:
12 Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say there is no resurrection of the dead? 13If there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised; 14and if Christ has not been raised, then our proclamation has been in vain and your faith has been in vain. 15We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified of God that he raised Christ—whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. 16For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised. 17If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. 18Then those also who have died in Christ have perished. 19If for this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied...
If the dead are not raised,
‘Let us eat and drink,
for tomorrow we die.’
Paul was a realist. He knew what the resurrection meant. It meant everything. Without it, he said the only response was "eat and drink for tomorrow we die."
The resurrection changes everything. Without it, who cares?
Thursday, October 3, 2013
Ignorance of the Past: Part 2
Sometimes I think we give ourselves too much credit in our "modern" world.
Sometimes I think we think that just because we are more scientifically advanced, we have new and better insight into the questions of reality, morality, etc.
Sometimes I think we are woefully ignorant of the past and believe people in previous eras were simpletons because they did not have the scientific knowledge we have today.
I think this is a massive mistake. Humankind has been wrestling with such questions for thousands of years.
Such a thing was refreshed in my mind as I watched a few youtube debates between believers and atheists regarding what happens after death. The big question of morality always comes up. Why be moral if there is no God? Why be moral if there is no eternal justice?
Nietzsche took this to its logical, philosophical conclusion and said, "No reason for morality. These things are just socially constructed. All is relative."
Some atheists agree. Some do not. Some want to say there are indeed universal morals. But the evidence for such things actually is quite slim. Sure, there seems to be, across cultures the idea of do unto others as you would have them do unto you, but there is also a universality in that the axiom is not followed.
Richard Dawkins himself adheres to the principle that this universal morality indeed is in culture and that evolution has helped us discover it. Yet, he still is willing to stand in front of thousands of people and tell them to publicly mock people of faith. Interestingly enough, I find, Dawkins doesn't appreciate being mocked himself. Apparently hypocrisy is not simply a phenomenon relegated to church going people.
But why even try if there is no life after death? Why even seek to do and be good if there is no judgment?
One could argue that one should do that which is good for the sake of it being good. But if one looks at the universe, at nature, at the reality of how living organisms interact, the only reason to be good is not for the sake of being good but for one's own self interest.
And that becomes the basic argument for most morality--my self interest or the self interest of the human species.
Yet, there is a problem in that. For would it not be in the self interest of the species to quarantine those who have any nasty communicable disease so that it would not spread? Would it not have been in the self interest of the species to eradicate the first man who contracted the AIDS virus so that no one else might have gotten it? We eradicate animals who have rabies so that they do not spread the disease. If man is no different than an animal, why not do the same? What makes human life so special that there is one set of rules in nature yet another set of rules in society?
Well, it's honestly because our morality isn't based in nature or in societal whim. Most of western morality is rooted and grounded in the Christian tradition, and that Christian tradition has dealt with the question of what the reality of life would be if there were no life after death.
St. Paul famously wrote in 1 Corinthians 15 verse 32: "If with merely human hopes I fought with wild animals at Ephesus, what would I have gained by it? If the dead are not raised, 'Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.'"
If there is no life after death, let us eat and drink for tomorrow we die. If this life is all there is to live for, might as well enjoy it to the max. There is no rhyme. There is no reason. There is no purpose. All indeed is vanity as the writer of Ecclesiastes said. Might as well get as much as we can, live high on the hog, and enjoy whatever pleasure we can possibly enjoy. Nihilism. Plain and simple. It was around long before Nietzsche.
We would do well, I think, to give credence to those thinkers in the past. There really isn't much new that is under the sun.
Sometimes I think we think that just because we are more scientifically advanced, we have new and better insight into the questions of reality, morality, etc.
Sometimes I think we are woefully ignorant of the past and believe people in previous eras were simpletons because they did not have the scientific knowledge we have today.
I think this is a massive mistake. Humankind has been wrestling with such questions for thousands of years.
Such a thing was refreshed in my mind as I watched a few youtube debates between believers and atheists regarding what happens after death. The big question of morality always comes up. Why be moral if there is no God? Why be moral if there is no eternal justice?
Nietzsche took this to its logical, philosophical conclusion and said, "No reason for morality. These things are just socially constructed. All is relative."
Some atheists agree. Some do not. Some want to say there are indeed universal morals. But the evidence for such things actually is quite slim. Sure, there seems to be, across cultures the idea of do unto others as you would have them do unto you, but there is also a universality in that the axiom is not followed.
Richard Dawkins himself adheres to the principle that this universal morality indeed is in culture and that evolution has helped us discover it. Yet, he still is willing to stand in front of thousands of people and tell them to publicly mock people of faith. Interestingly enough, I find, Dawkins doesn't appreciate being mocked himself. Apparently hypocrisy is not simply a phenomenon relegated to church going people.
But why even try if there is no life after death? Why even seek to do and be good if there is no judgment?
One could argue that one should do that which is good for the sake of it being good. But if one looks at the universe, at nature, at the reality of how living organisms interact, the only reason to be good is not for the sake of being good but for one's own self interest.
And that becomes the basic argument for most morality--my self interest or the self interest of the human species.
Yet, there is a problem in that. For would it not be in the self interest of the species to quarantine those who have any nasty communicable disease so that it would not spread? Would it not have been in the self interest of the species to eradicate the first man who contracted the AIDS virus so that no one else might have gotten it? We eradicate animals who have rabies so that they do not spread the disease. If man is no different than an animal, why not do the same? What makes human life so special that there is one set of rules in nature yet another set of rules in society?
Well, it's honestly because our morality isn't based in nature or in societal whim. Most of western morality is rooted and grounded in the Christian tradition, and that Christian tradition has dealt with the question of what the reality of life would be if there were no life after death.
St. Paul famously wrote in 1 Corinthians 15 verse 32: "If with merely human hopes I fought with wild animals at Ephesus, what would I have gained by it? If the dead are not raised, 'Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.'"
If there is no life after death, let us eat and drink for tomorrow we die. If this life is all there is to live for, might as well enjoy it to the max. There is no rhyme. There is no reason. There is no purpose. All indeed is vanity as the writer of Ecclesiastes said. Might as well get as much as we can, live high on the hog, and enjoy whatever pleasure we can possibly enjoy. Nihilism. Plain and simple. It was around long before Nietzsche.
We would do well, I think, to give credence to those thinkers in the past. There really isn't much new that is under the sun.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)