Assumptions are terribly dangerous things. They are easy categories that we apply to people for fear of investing time to love; they are the very shields we erect to convene others just beyond our borders so that we might not have to learn about a person. Rather, assumptions give us just enough information as to criticize, demean, and keep at arms length.
While I am primarily speaking of assumptions in regards to people–assuming something about another person–assumptions can be dangerous in nearly any setting. I am in no little predicament to assume sure footing whilst my toes are planting in the route of an oncoming landslide. There is no safety in assuming the gun is not loaded when I hold it in my hand.
Yet we do make assumptions. We make assumptions about one another, about race and creed, background and politic, wisdom and foolishness. And to make these overarching assumptions about another person is merely a defense mechanism used to cope with the reality of our own innate apathy towards another individual. The point here is not the veracity of the assumption but, rather, that the assumption is necessary at all. This I could call the assumption of indifference, wherein the assumption serves to overcome the lack in relationship by placing an overarching category over an individual, i.e. he's lazy, stupid, rude, et al.
But there is another assumption that is far-more dangerous: the assumption of relationship. In the former assumption, distance is presumed between individuals and the assumption serves to qualify and define that distance. In this assumption, the assumption of relationship, the true assumption is that the individuals are not distant but are, in fact, close. This assumption, though subtle, is present when one person claims a near relationship with another that is unwarranted and unfounded. In the real world, this looks like coworker who shares all-too private things assuming to already possess the relationship needed for that degree of sharing.
The reason that the assumption of relationship is so devastating is that, eventually, the reality of the relationship will be brought to light and the assuming party will be found wanting and humiliated. This is so easily to see in teenage boys who, after assuming a relationship with a teenage girl, are confronted with the reality that the girl has no feelings for the boy akin to the kind of relationship assumed by the boy. The net effect for the exposed assumer is devastation, want, and humiliation.
Without much consideration we could see the harm of assuming relationships. But how many of us do this very thing when it comes to salvation? How many of us assume to possess a relationship with the Lord Almighty where one does not exist?
It is with this on our minds that Paul's exhortation to the Philippians seems most appropriate.
"Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure." (Phil. 2:12-13)
Showing posts with label philosophy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label philosophy. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 30, 2014
Thursday, April 24, 2014
What's The Most Important Thing?
Life and all the various components that comprise it come to us in uncatalogued. As we experience life and learn about the variety of distinctions unique to to everything, we naturally begin the process of ordering our lives, evaluating everything that we come into contact with and categorizing everything into a sort of value-based mental hierarchy of tastes, likes, dislikes, desires, passions, dreams, morals, ethics, et al.
There becomes, as it were, a prioritization within each one of us. We have these lists, for lack of a better word, in which our entire lives, our very existence, is placed into our perspective orders. To be sure, these lists are almost-surely informal and un-written, but they exist none the less.
The question I pose is this:
What's at the top of your life list? What is the most important thing?
Quite plainly, nothing compares to the surpassing greatness of knowing God through Jesus Christ. Nothing.
There becomes, as it were, a prioritization within each one of us. We have these lists, for lack of a better word, in which our entire lives, our very existence, is placed into our perspective orders. To be sure, these lists are almost-surely informal and un-written, but they exist none the less.
The question I pose is this:
What's at the top of your life list? What is the most important thing?
Quite plainly, nothing compares to the surpassing greatness of knowing God through Jesus Christ. Nothing.
Tuesday, April 8, 2014
Eternal Life & Oranges
There is perhaps nothing so uniquely Christian as eternal life. It is one of those features of Christian theology that, in so many ways, sets it apart from every other religious or philosophical system. This distinction comes, at least in part, from the method of receiving this eternal life; namely, through faith in Christ Jesus. It is not about doing something or even knowing something; it is about having a real, personal relationship with the Holy Lord through His Son.
But this, the manner through which eternal life is received by the individual, is not the definition of eternal life; it is only a description of how it is obtained. In truth, so much of Christian theology is consumed, and rightly so, with understanding the initiation of eternal life that comes through faith in Christ. However, we would do well not to neglect that eternal life has, at its core, a content that is quite spectacular.
Understanding eternal life deserves its own consideration, its own description aside form merely talking about how to receive it. That is what I hope to convey here. For this an analogy might serve the best course.
Imagine, for a moment, that your only experience with an orange was with those inedible decorative oranges that some people put in bowls in there homes. But you had never actually tasted an orange. You may, by deduction, understand that the orange is something to eat and maybe even that it has a taste unique to itself. If you are particularly clever you may, through studying what others have said about the orange, begin to ascribe to the orange features it possesses: citric, sweet, juicy, etc.
And while each of those ascriptions would be accurate you yourself would never be speaking of an actual orange, you would only be talking about the orange hypothetically, neither from experience or with any applied knowledge; only theoretical musings. At best you could only say what the orange of your description might be like if you could pick its inedible shape off of the table and eat it, though you'd always be thinking of the same dull decorative orange-thing while you're attempting to describe what the orange may be like (it is very much so akin to describing a particular color to someone who has been born blind).
In the end, however, only upon actually eating the orange would you thus possess true knowledge of the orange itself. It is, in a sense, through tasting the orange that the reality of the orange and its orange-ness become of any real value or accuracy.
Eternal life is sort of like this in that until we possess it through Christ we can only describe it in terms of hypotheticals, never speaking anything accept what might conjecture in ascribing to eternal life what we have reasoned or what has been told us. But in Christ we receive eternal life, meaning that the life possessed in Him is one that is uniquely eternal. Moreover, this life will possess certain 'tastes' unique to it that cannot be sufficiently understood or even communicated by anyone except for those who have tasted it.
Theologically speaking, this comes down to the presence of the Holy Spirit who indwells the believer and initiates a new life. And like tasting an orange for the first time will bring with it a newness of perspective that will inform every other taste, the new life in Christ will influence every facet of the believer's life with a newness, a new taste (keep in mind this is an inadequate analogy for the supreme holiness that is the new birth but the limits of language should never dissuade us from attempting to understand that for which comprehension stands just outside of our grasp).
This is but a scratch in the surface of eternal life, a single droplet into a seas worth of theology. However, I hope that it has at least sparked an internal dialogue within you that you might consider what eternal life 'tastes' like to you. And if you cannot say with any authority or conviction what eternal life is then I urge you to ask a Christ-follower and, even more so, to find out for yourself with a sincere step of faith in your own life. You will be as amazed as the man whose never tasted an orange.
But this, the manner through which eternal life is received by the individual, is not the definition of eternal life; it is only a description of how it is obtained. In truth, so much of Christian theology is consumed, and rightly so, with understanding the initiation of eternal life that comes through faith in Christ. However, we would do well not to neglect that eternal life has, at its core, a content that is quite spectacular.
Understanding eternal life deserves its own consideration, its own description aside form merely talking about how to receive it. That is what I hope to convey here. For this an analogy might serve the best course.
Imagine, for a moment, that your only experience with an orange was with those inedible decorative oranges that some people put in bowls in there homes. But you had never actually tasted an orange. You may, by deduction, understand that the orange is something to eat and maybe even that it has a taste unique to itself. If you are particularly clever you may, through studying what others have said about the orange, begin to ascribe to the orange features it possesses: citric, sweet, juicy, etc.
And while each of those ascriptions would be accurate you yourself would never be speaking of an actual orange, you would only be talking about the orange hypothetically, neither from experience or with any applied knowledge; only theoretical musings. At best you could only say what the orange of your description might be like if you could pick its inedible shape off of the table and eat it, though you'd always be thinking of the same dull decorative orange-thing while you're attempting to describe what the orange may be like (it is very much so akin to describing a particular color to someone who has been born blind).
In the end, however, only upon actually eating the orange would you thus possess true knowledge of the orange itself. It is, in a sense, through tasting the orange that the reality of the orange and its orange-ness become of any real value or accuracy.
Eternal life is sort of like this in that until we possess it through Christ we can only describe it in terms of hypotheticals, never speaking anything accept what might conjecture in ascribing to eternal life what we have reasoned or what has been told us. But in Christ we receive eternal life, meaning that the life possessed in Him is one that is uniquely eternal. Moreover, this life will possess certain 'tastes' unique to it that cannot be sufficiently understood or even communicated by anyone except for those who have tasted it.
Theologically speaking, this comes down to the presence of the Holy Spirit who indwells the believer and initiates a new life. And like tasting an orange for the first time will bring with it a newness of perspective that will inform every other taste, the new life in Christ will influence every facet of the believer's life with a newness, a new taste (keep in mind this is an inadequate analogy for the supreme holiness that is the new birth but the limits of language should never dissuade us from attempting to understand that for which comprehension stands just outside of our grasp).
This is but a scratch in the surface of eternal life, a single droplet into a seas worth of theology. However, I hope that it has at least sparked an internal dialogue within you that you might consider what eternal life 'tastes' like to you. And if you cannot say with any authority or conviction what eternal life is then I urge you to ask a Christ-follower and, even more so, to find out for yourself with a sincere step of faith in your own life. You will be as amazed as the man whose never tasted an orange.
Friday, February 21, 2014
Get Off Your Own Perspective.
Life is so often a matter of perspective. It is as we are able to transcend the limits of our paltry personal viewpoints that we are able to see things more clearly and able, then, to love more fully. Consider the story of the grocer who, after finding that her husband has been having an affair with another woman for several years, is overwhelmingly rude to the patrons she helps throughout her day. Now, as a patron, we may have the perspective that this woman is nothing more than a rude woman with little care for her job or even for human decency. And while our perspective would certainly be considered an accurate interpretation of our personal experience it would, in the end, be an incorrect one.
There is more to life than our personal experiences and far-more useful things than our own perspectives. One of the goals in love is to get beyond your own perspective to not only see the others but, even more so, to cherish theirs more than our own. This is the very essence of "Love thy neighbor as thyself." We would do well to take time throughout our days to truly consider the plights of those around us, if only so as to help us empathize and love. To read another's story can go a long way to loving them wherever that story may be currently leaving them.
The end goal here is love: that we would love others as we love ourself. Truthfully considering the reality of another's narrative will go far in informing us as to who they are and why they are that way. This is, to be sure, a difficult thing to do when we ourselves are so blinded by whatever predicament or emotional state that may be currently fogging our vision. Let us, however, strive to love God with hearts of humility and honesty just as we strive to love others by putting ourselves into their shoes.
There is more to life than our personal experiences and far-more useful things than our own perspectives. One of the goals in love is to get beyond your own perspective to not only see the others but, even more so, to cherish theirs more than our own. This is the very essence of "Love thy neighbor as thyself." We would do well to take time throughout our days to truly consider the plights of those around us, if only so as to help us empathize and love. To read another's story can go a long way to loving them wherever that story may be currently leaving them.
The end goal here is love: that we would love others as we love ourself. Truthfully considering the reality of another's narrative will go far in informing us as to who they are and why they are that way. This is, to be sure, a difficult thing to do when we ourselves are so blinded by whatever predicament or emotional state that may be currently fogging our vision. Let us, however, strive to love God with hearts of humility and honesty just as we strive to love others by putting ourselves into their shoes.
Thursday, October 10, 2013
Thoughts on Life
It is an all-too easy thing to think of life in ever-expansive terms, making one's own being seem larger and loftier while also making it less rooted in reality. In this celebrity culture one's life tends to be distilled into bullet points of achievement and ownership as the fullness of a person is fragmented into pieces to be parsed into categories of merit, one pile of value and another of uselessness. But as this process begins to take a human and turn them into mere components of an individualized narrative, the product of this fermentation is a counterfeit inebriation of how we perceive life.
What I mean to say, in a roundabout way, is that it is all the more vital today that we would take a moment to step out of ourselves to view the big picture. I have countless encounters with people who are so engrossed and enameled with particular elements of their lives that they are always stuck wearing tunnel-vision goggles, undoubtedly running into the same walls simply because they've not taken the time to recognize the forest though they be surrounded by trees.
And having so overvalued the personal experience that we've lost sight of the real, the Truth, and the valuable; that is, if we ever had the vision to see these things before of course. The point of this blog is to exhort us to live a life that takes time to breath in the world around us and that we would slow down and smell the proverbial roses. For today, then, let us take a moment or two to take in the world around us and to praise God for it all!
Tuesday, September 10, 2013
What Right Does God Have?
I have heard this question and many of its variations for years: 'what right does God have...?" It is most often coupled with an indictment of this faceless and unknown divine being who is considered audacious enough to encroach upon the individual's freedom to do whatever the heck he/she wants. Needless to say, this argument is predicated upon fallacious girding because it supports its veracity on the basis of man's indomitable free will, which is basic terms means, 'I can do anything I want whenever I want and nothing and no one can tell me I'm right or wrong.'
But the aforementioned statement-veiled-question neglects the reality of human personhood, namely that everything about us is a fluctuating derivative. I mean two things by that phrase: (1) that human beings are always in flux and thus unable to accurately asses themselves at any time without an external critical input; and (2) that we are, at our cores, wholly contingent beings that are inherently dependent upon others for our being.
Spiritually speaking, or at least in reference to the above question, this brings a number of thoughts to bear upon the discussion. At the start, it means that by asking 'what right God has?' we must also ask, 'what right do I have?' In other words, before we can challenge the Maker of the universe for the supremacy in our lives, we have to honestly assess if we are even capable of claiming that lordship for ourselves, to which the answer is an unequivocal no.
Being contingent beings means that we are dependent. Therefore, to claim a sort of independence that betrays this fact would be, in the end, self defeating.
While there is more to be said about this, suffice to say that in reference to the question about what right God has, well, the answer is: God has all the right in the world for whatever He wants. After all, He's God, the Creator of all creation. In the end, He is who He is and we are His by that fact. There is no way around this dilemma, either we ignore it or we live under its truth.
But the aforementioned statement-veiled-question neglects the reality of human personhood, namely that everything about us is a fluctuating derivative. I mean two things by that phrase: (1) that human beings are always in flux and thus unable to accurately asses themselves at any time without an external critical input; and (2) that we are, at our cores, wholly contingent beings that are inherently dependent upon others for our being.
Spiritually speaking, or at least in reference to the above question, this brings a number of thoughts to bear upon the discussion. At the start, it means that by asking 'what right God has?' we must also ask, 'what right do I have?' In other words, before we can challenge the Maker of the universe for the supremacy in our lives, we have to honestly assess if we are even capable of claiming that lordship for ourselves, to which the answer is an unequivocal no.
Being contingent beings means that we are dependent. Therefore, to claim a sort of independence that betrays this fact would be, in the end, self defeating.
While there is more to be said about this, suffice to say that in reference to the question about what right God has, well, the answer is: God has all the right in the world for whatever He wants. After all, He's God, the Creator of all creation. In the end, He is who He is and we are His by that fact. There is no way around this dilemma, either we ignore it or we live under its truth.
Thursday, July 11, 2013
God of Impossibilities
To say that nothing impossible to God is an unfathomable distinction for us to comprehend. But this is exactly the statement made throughout Scripture, of particular importance is Jesus saying it Himself (Matt 19:26). While as an assertion it is logical and coherent, we struggle against the very tensile limits of language and thought to grasp its fullness and meaning.
The classical argument against runs something like this: 'can God create an object so large that He Himself cannot move it?"
While it may seem at first glance that this question has, in a sense, put God in a logical box that He cannot escape, I assure you that this question betrays itself. Let me explain.
When we, as humans, think of possibilities we, because of our nature, are forced to think of it in terms of limitations. In fact, our whole world is defined by limits. After all, how would I be able to write this coherently if not for the limits of the english language; or how would I know that I am not the person next to me if not for the spatial limitations of my body (the list goes on and on). These can be limitations of engineering, of language, of creativity, of resource, et al. Because of this, we cannot fully fathom anything at all that is not defined by limit.
But God does not in any sense whatsoever possess limitations akin to our own. His limitations are not based upon anything other than His own character. For instance, He cannot do something unholy. This is not a limitation but is the very essence of perfection, because when something is perfect it cannot at anytime or in anyway do or possess any imperfection.
In reference to the question about creating a giant object, we must recognize that not only does God not create in the same way as us (He creates by the very power of His word), but also He is never constrained to potentiality. This is to say that God does not deal in that which may or may not be. He is the ultimate reality; therefore, everything He does is. He speaks and it occurs. There are no constraining limitations to this method. So in a real sense, the realest sense, nothing is impossible for God.
However, a small disclaimer must be asserted for fear of misunderstandings. Although there is nothing impossible for God, in one sense there is a limit to what is possible. That limit is, quite frankly, His very nature and character. Because He is God, He is restricted to be God. He cannot, as it were, do or be anything other than God in character and in nature.
We implicitly know this. That is why the incarnation can be such a difficult thing for us to grasp. But it is also this fact that makes the incarnation both a necessity as well as a true statement to the utter depths of God's love for us. It shows us how far He was willing to go to vanquish sin from this world. Jesus, the Son of God Himself incarnate, emptied Himself of His eternal power as he condescended to the form of a servant and a creature, and by His own volition was killed on our behalf so as to save mankind from the eternally destructive force of sin.
In the end, all we can say is: Amen! And praise be to God!!!
The classical argument against runs something like this: 'can God create an object so large that He Himself cannot move it?"
While it may seem at first glance that this question has, in a sense, put God in a logical box that He cannot escape, I assure you that this question betrays itself. Let me explain.
When we, as humans, think of possibilities we, because of our nature, are forced to think of it in terms of limitations. In fact, our whole world is defined by limits. After all, how would I be able to write this coherently if not for the limits of the english language; or how would I know that I am not the person next to me if not for the spatial limitations of my body (the list goes on and on). These can be limitations of engineering, of language, of creativity, of resource, et al. Because of this, we cannot fully fathom anything at all that is not defined by limit.
But God does not in any sense whatsoever possess limitations akin to our own. His limitations are not based upon anything other than His own character. For instance, He cannot do something unholy. This is not a limitation but is the very essence of perfection, because when something is perfect it cannot at anytime or in anyway do or possess any imperfection.
In reference to the question about creating a giant object, we must recognize that not only does God not create in the same way as us (He creates by the very power of His word), but also He is never constrained to potentiality. This is to say that God does not deal in that which may or may not be. He is the ultimate reality; therefore, everything He does is. He speaks and it occurs. There are no constraining limitations to this method. So in a real sense, the realest sense, nothing is impossible for God.
However, a small disclaimer must be asserted for fear of misunderstandings. Although there is nothing impossible for God, in one sense there is a limit to what is possible. That limit is, quite frankly, His very nature and character. Because He is God, He is restricted to be God. He cannot, as it were, do or be anything other than God in character and in nature.
We implicitly know this. That is why the incarnation can be such a difficult thing for us to grasp. But it is also this fact that makes the incarnation both a necessity as well as a true statement to the utter depths of God's love for us. It shows us how far He was willing to go to vanquish sin from this world. Jesus, the Son of God Himself incarnate, emptied Himself of His eternal power as he condescended to the form of a servant and a creature, and by His own volition was killed on our behalf so as to save mankind from the eternally destructive force of sin.
In the end, all we can say is: Amen! And praise be to God!!!
Saturday, May 18, 2013
Low View of God = Low View of Humanity
The most important thing about humanity is God, both our constitution as being created in His image and our thoughts of who He is. The lower the thoughts of God then, by association, the lower the thoughts of humanity. It is no wonder that those who diminish God would also be those that diminish humanity by that same right.
For if the worth and value of a human is determined by the fact that we are created by God in His image. This is the very definition of man. Therefore, whenever we reduce our thoughts of God we equally reduce our thoughts of humanity. We cannot, nor shall we be able to, separate this connection. Let us then never forget this reality that the low view of God is the culprit of the low view of humans, while a high view of God will have an equal but opposite result.
For if the worth and value of a human is determined by the fact that we are created by God in His image. This is the very definition of man. Therefore, whenever we reduce our thoughts of God we equally reduce our thoughts of humanity. We cannot, nor shall we be able to, separate this connection. Let us then never forget this reality that the low view of God is the culprit of the low view of humans, while a high view of God will have an equal but opposite result.
Monday, May 6, 2013
Considering a Flawed Paradox
There is a classical paradox that is often uttered as some sort of linguistic proof against the existence of an omnipotent God: "Can God create an object so massive that He Himself is unable to move it?"
While I would not normally delve into such things here, I found this to be an interesting mental task as I woke up this morning and wanted to share my considerations.
There are, as I see it, two fatal flaws to this false dilemma. The first is one of constitution whilst the other is a matter of semantics. In the first case, it is incorrect to think of God's manner of strength as like our own.
For humans, strength and creativity in movement are measured by the degrees of exertion required to manipulate the bounds of physical laws. We think someone strong for how much force they can bring to bear upon a particular parameter. This is a fine and reasonable measurement of strength when it comes to the creature realm, but it is wholly unacceptable when dealing with the Creator God. His strength is not and cannot be measured in the same sense because His strength is not a matter of physical effort or the application of force. His strength is founded, rather, on His very nature and, by that nature, on the power of His Word. He creates not by utilization and struggle but by His Word. Because of this, the aforementioned paradox is proved illegitimate. However, as I stated, there is a semantic opposition to this paradox as well.
While the question fulfills all necessary linguistic requirements of proposition, it neglects the obvious, namely, that merely to insert God into the question does not legitimize its absurdity. It is, to be sure, a paradoxical statement, but it is a hypothetical paradox which betrays its intent. God is the ultimate real; He is, in fact, the source of reality. He only deals in realities because His nature constrains Him to do so. His power is not limited by this but because His power is a matter of thought and will, not an ordering of exerting forces, for Him to think of something is for that thing to then be. Therefore, it is not for Him to be considered in the realm of hypotheticals; that is where we creatures live.
At the final analysis, I hope that this too-brief foray into paradoxical examination has been fruitful in glorifying God in His absolute majesty! Amen to God who IS!
While I would not normally delve into such things here, I found this to be an interesting mental task as I woke up this morning and wanted to share my considerations.
There are, as I see it, two fatal flaws to this false dilemma. The first is one of constitution whilst the other is a matter of semantics. In the first case, it is incorrect to think of God's manner of strength as like our own.
For humans, strength and creativity in movement are measured by the degrees of exertion required to manipulate the bounds of physical laws. We think someone strong for how much force they can bring to bear upon a particular parameter. This is a fine and reasonable measurement of strength when it comes to the creature realm, but it is wholly unacceptable when dealing with the Creator God. His strength is not and cannot be measured in the same sense because His strength is not a matter of physical effort or the application of force. His strength is founded, rather, on His very nature and, by that nature, on the power of His Word. He creates not by utilization and struggle but by His Word. Because of this, the aforementioned paradox is proved illegitimate. However, as I stated, there is a semantic opposition to this paradox as well.
While the question fulfills all necessary linguistic requirements of proposition, it neglects the obvious, namely, that merely to insert God into the question does not legitimize its absurdity. It is, to be sure, a paradoxical statement, but it is a hypothetical paradox which betrays its intent. God is the ultimate real; He is, in fact, the source of reality. He only deals in realities because His nature constrains Him to do so. His power is not limited by this but because His power is a matter of thought and will, not an ordering of exerting forces, for Him to think of something is for that thing to then be. Therefore, it is not for Him to be considered in the realm of hypotheticals; that is where we creatures live.
At the final analysis, I hope that this too-brief foray into paradoxical examination has been fruitful in glorifying God in His absolute majesty! Amen to God who IS!
Sunday, April 21, 2013
Who Assesses Value? Where Does Worth Come From?
In every faction of life, there are entire careers and swaths of experts dedicated to the task of appraisal. From serving to industry, and health to finance, perhaps there is no stream of human life that is not quantified and evaluated. Through all of this, humans have grown accustomed to criticism and competition. And in our ever-increasing digital world, the evaluations have become more personal while simultaneously shifting to be more anonymous. The old adage, "every man's a critic" has perhaps never rang more clearly than in a world in which every person values his/her own voice to the discredit of every one else's.
The issue at hand, however, is one that is far deeper: the quest for value. It is an entirely human trait to search for value, to claim value, and to extol value. It is our fervent search for value and worth that supports nearly every realm of human life, from clothing to cars and everything in between. And it is the person's innate, seemingly-insatiable pursuit of self-worth that has attached the current cultural moorings with many a variety of barnacles of lust, greed, pride, idolatry, and a whole host of other counterfeit human valuations.
All in all, the enigma that compels our own scouring for self-worth is one of the grave realities of life. And we should not think that we can accept a neutrality in this arena, for there can be no surrenders whilst squatting on the field in a firefight. Every worldview must grip this question and offer an answer. The validity of the response is the very weight of truth. If atheism could offer a valid answer to this question then the whole system may be tenable; yet, as it is, humanity can have no real worth if it is comprised of millennial-long chaotic genetic reproduction in the mindless and purposeless void of evolutionary processes. Another answer must be given.
Humanity has always possessed a deeply innate sense that we are, after all, valuable. We truly feel that our lives have actual worth. But this worth is not an extrinsic one. It cannot be based on what a person can do or does, who they are in a societal sense, what resources they possess and in what great measure; none of this is an accurate attestation of true value and actual worth. If we were to hold to any of these sources of value, then it would be no wonder that we don't consider unborn babies worthy of birth and why wouldn't we euthanize other ethnicities or birth deformities for they could never ascend to satisfactory levels of comparative worth.
Clearly, this is unacceptable. Another rubric must be used, a different source of intrinsic value must be asserted. It is at this point that only Christianity holds sway in presenting a reasonable and thorough answer to the dilemma of human worth. Christianity holds that every single human being is valuable. This value is not based upon race, gender, age, culture, intellect, strength, money, clothing, or any other man-made criterion for evaluation. Christianity asserts that every single human being is valuable solely because they are made by God Almighty Himself and that they bear His image.
This means that the mute, the dumb, the deaf, the disabled, the strong, the smart, the funny, the awkward, the shy, the gregarious, the likable, and the repellent are all worthy for they all possess an equal measure of intrinsic value by virtue of their nature: they are God's creatures, made by Him, and made in His image. This is the only true, intrinsic, non-partial source of human value. Any other source is but a shadowy counterfeit of the real.
It is inescapable that the individual (you and me) will have to make a decision about where his/her value arises from and will it be the same rating system used for every person or not. For instance, I play guitar and I value that part of myself. If I only valued other people who shared that value, then I would not value very many people. But on the other hand, if I affirm that my value and worth comes not from myself but from the God that made me, then I will value everyone by that very same standard, that God made them too. It stems from this fact, that all humans were created equally in the image of God, that humans are made capable of living the life that created-ness affords and desires. Let us then never lose sight of our true nature, for in it is the source of our truth self-worth.
The issue at hand, however, is one that is far deeper: the quest for value. It is an entirely human trait to search for value, to claim value, and to extol value. It is our fervent search for value and worth that supports nearly every realm of human life, from clothing to cars and everything in between. And it is the person's innate, seemingly-insatiable pursuit of self-worth that has attached the current cultural moorings with many a variety of barnacles of lust, greed, pride, idolatry, and a whole host of other counterfeit human valuations.
All in all, the enigma that compels our own scouring for self-worth is one of the grave realities of life. And we should not think that we can accept a neutrality in this arena, for there can be no surrenders whilst squatting on the field in a firefight. Every worldview must grip this question and offer an answer. The validity of the response is the very weight of truth. If atheism could offer a valid answer to this question then the whole system may be tenable; yet, as it is, humanity can have no real worth if it is comprised of millennial-long chaotic genetic reproduction in the mindless and purposeless void of evolutionary processes. Another answer must be given.
Humanity has always possessed a deeply innate sense that we are, after all, valuable. We truly feel that our lives have actual worth. But this worth is not an extrinsic one. It cannot be based on what a person can do or does, who they are in a societal sense, what resources they possess and in what great measure; none of this is an accurate attestation of true value and actual worth. If we were to hold to any of these sources of value, then it would be no wonder that we don't consider unborn babies worthy of birth and why wouldn't we euthanize other ethnicities or birth deformities for they could never ascend to satisfactory levels of comparative worth.
Clearly, this is unacceptable. Another rubric must be used, a different source of intrinsic value must be asserted. It is at this point that only Christianity holds sway in presenting a reasonable and thorough answer to the dilemma of human worth. Christianity holds that every single human being is valuable. This value is not based upon race, gender, age, culture, intellect, strength, money, clothing, or any other man-made criterion for evaluation. Christianity asserts that every single human being is valuable solely because they are made by God Almighty Himself and that they bear His image.
This means that the mute, the dumb, the deaf, the disabled, the strong, the smart, the funny, the awkward, the shy, the gregarious, the likable, and the repellent are all worthy for they all possess an equal measure of intrinsic value by virtue of their nature: they are God's creatures, made by Him, and made in His image. This is the only true, intrinsic, non-partial source of human value. Any other source is but a shadowy counterfeit of the real.
It is inescapable that the individual (you and me) will have to make a decision about where his/her value arises from and will it be the same rating system used for every person or not. For instance, I play guitar and I value that part of myself. If I only valued other people who shared that value, then I would not value very many people. But on the other hand, if I affirm that my value and worth comes not from myself but from the God that made me, then I will value everyone by that very same standard, that God made them too. It stems from this fact, that all humans were created equally in the image of God, that humans are made capable of living the life that created-ness affords and desires. Let us then never lose sight of our true nature, for in it is the source of our truth self-worth.
Tuesday, April 16, 2013
Presence of Evil
Yesterday, in Boston, one of the most historic sporting events was challenged. At least two bombs went off at or near the finish line of the marathon's end, killing a young boy and injuring several others. It has been the star of the news for the past day. It is an horrendous tragedy and it seems to stir something in us, something deep down in our cores.
Most of this life is, when it is stripped down to reality, a game of distraction. We spend our money, our time, and our energy pretending that we are healthy, attempting to cheat death, and ignoring the evil and sin all around us. However, there are those occasions, such as the tragic events in Boston or the Connecticut school shooting or the Colorado theatre shooting, when we are forced to face the truth: that evil does exist.
Often times this reality sparks theological tension as we reel back to ask "where is God?" But I submit that this question itself is proof of God's existence. If we are to recognize the external absoluteness of evil we must have an innate sense of that which is good; for you cannot have eyes to see evil if those eyes are not tuned to see the good.
This thought warrants that good is not to be considered the opposite of evil, as it were, but that evil is the utter lacking of good. Sort of like hot is not the opposite of cold just that cold is the complete absence of the presence of heat. But we could not know that which is cold apart from an understanding that heat exists as a reality. Similarly, we could not begin to recognize that evil exists if we do not accept that good must be as well.
And 'good', if we could consider it a substance more than a trait of things that are good, must be an external thing that is thus possessed in some measure through the actions/thoughts done. It must not be thought of like blue or smelly, for it is not perceived through the normal means: it is perceived spiritually. Because of this, we should remember that the presence of evil, strangely, is a reminder at the presence of God because it is in our relationship to God that we can in any way perceive that which is good and, by extension, that which is evil.
At the final analysis, evil is an indictment of how far from the good man and creation has fallen as well as a reminder as to how great and good God truly is that we could recognize evil at all despite the wickedness of our sinful nature. My prayers go out to the victims of this tragedy and I pray as well that it serves to turn us back to God!
Most of this life is, when it is stripped down to reality, a game of distraction. We spend our money, our time, and our energy pretending that we are healthy, attempting to cheat death, and ignoring the evil and sin all around us. However, there are those occasions, such as the tragic events in Boston or the Connecticut school shooting or the Colorado theatre shooting, when we are forced to face the truth: that evil does exist.
Often times this reality sparks theological tension as we reel back to ask "where is God?" But I submit that this question itself is proof of God's existence. If we are to recognize the external absoluteness of evil we must have an innate sense of that which is good; for you cannot have eyes to see evil if those eyes are not tuned to see the good.
This thought warrants that good is not to be considered the opposite of evil, as it were, but that evil is the utter lacking of good. Sort of like hot is not the opposite of cold just that cold is the complete absence of the presence of heat. But we could not know that which is cold apart from an understanding that heat exists as a reality. Similarly, we could not begin to recognize that evil exists if we do not accept that good must be as well.
And 'good', if we could consider it a substance more than a trait of things that are good, must be an external thing that is thus possessed in some measure through the actions/thoughts done. It must not be thought of like blue or smelly, for it is not perceived through the normal means: it is perceived spiritually. Because of this, we should remember that the presence of evil, strangely, is a reminder at the presence of God because it is in our relationship to God that we can in any way perceive that which is good and, by extension, that which is evil.
At the final analysis, evil is an indictment of how far from the good man and creation has fallen as well as a reminder as to how great and good God truly is that we could recognize evil at all despite the wickedness of our sinful nature. My prayers go out to the victims of this tragedy and I pray as well that it serves to turn us back to God!
Monday, February 11, 2013
Free Will Expounded
Free will necessitates the freedom to make any conceivable choice at any spontaneous moment, but it also demands that the choosing agent is capable of choosing the 'right' choice, that is, the choice of greatest good, etc. In every choosing scenario there is a greatest good choice. In every situation, the right decision is the one pleasing and praising to God. If this choice is reckoned unavailable to the natural, unrepentant man then free will is equally unavailable.
It is not enough to see the ability to choose as the definition of free will. No. Free will demands that the one freely making the choice can choose the 'correct' choice, that is, the choice of most rightness, i.e. God. But because of sin, man is not able to make the very choice they need to; the freedom to choose the right choice is forfeited. As such, free will is rendered unavailable to the natural man.
Only if the natural man is transformed, reborn as it were, can he posses the freedom of will to choose God. Some would say that the natural man has a certain free will in his ignorance, but knowledge is insufficient to transform the natural man. Knowing I cannot move my limbs does nothing to make them more usable; a quadriplegic cannot run a marathon without new legs!
Desire is the determinant for decision making. It is cognitive desire which assesses the greatest desired end that becomes the discriminating factor between two like choices. For instance, if I can choose between a carrot and a cheeseburger, my choice will almost always be the cheeseburger because my own personality sees that as the greater choice; my own desire determines which choice I will make.
Moreover, the natural man will not choose God for he understands that he stands condemned already. If all the choices of the world were stacked up alongside the choice of God, the natural man will most certainly choose anything other than God because his nature constrains him to reject and spurn anything of God. He is not only unable to choose God but, even more so, he is determined against God in his heart, meaning he would not choose God even if he were able to do so.
If I am unable in my flesh to choose God or even to be able to please God then we must say that I do not have freedom of will in the utmost sense. If our ability to choose means that I must have the right to choose the ultimate good then any deficiency in this regard should be carried through the entirety of the system.
If I cannot choose God then I do not actually possess free will because I am utterly incapable of choosing that which is the ultimate definition of choice. Why would Jesus say man must be born again if it is not because the man as is will not be able to willfully choose God. Only a reborn man can choose God at all.
Additionally, if the unbeliever can only make choices that do not please God and is unable to do otherwise, then we must conclude that he does not have free will on the true sense. The decisions and choices made are but shadows and perceptions of choice, they are not actual choices because he is unable to make the only choice that matters: to love God.
Taken altogether it can be reasonably asserted that free will, as we might conceive of it, is an ability, it turns out, that only the man called and transformed by God possesses. Any conception of free will that neglects the fact that the freedom to choose God must be present would be, as it were, a deficient concept amputated of freedom and of will. While this may seem like philosophical philandering, it does affect how we do life and how we understand the human condition. We would do well to dwell on what we mean by choice, freedom, will, et al.
Sunday, February 10, 2013
Grand Illusion of Free Will
Free will is an illusion. It is a human fancy that can be supported neither by logic nor by the constraints of reality. Free will is defined, traditionally, as the individual moral agent possessing the ability for spontaneous choice. Simply put: a person can choose whatever they want whenever they want it. The key elements, thus, for free will's definition are spontaneity and choice. This is to say that free will only exists if the elements of spontaneity and choice are present.
However, if we consider the two things necessary for 'free will' then with some reasoning it can be seen that neither of these things exist in the scope of space/time. Because both of these things are to be considered necessarily present for free will, they need to be addressed as one. The point, I submit, is that neither of them actually exists as we may think of them.
Spontaneity means that we may have the ability to make any momentary snap decision desired and that a variety of choices must be present at the moment of that decision's making. But by that very definition, spontaneity cannot be present while allowing for the maximum number of choices because at any specific moment only a limited number of choices are available. I cannot wake up and go to sleep at the same time.
We are constrained by reality, then, to limit the number of choices available to the spontaneous chooser, but does this in itself challenge the reality of free will? Consider a hypothetical scenario to illustrate the point. For this let us limit the available choices to two in an effort to perhaps address the concepts of spontaneity more acutely.
Say there are only two options on a menu. Both items are specialties of the restaurant but, nonetheless, any patron may order either one or the other, not both. One of them is a sweet dish, the other a salty one. A patron sits down at the booth and makes a spontaneous decision. However, I submit that the decision is not spontaneous but was in fact predicated upon a number of contributing factors (think preference, health, et al), meaning that the choice was not, in the most rigid sense, a free choice but was in fact a highly predictable one. In this sense, although the individual experiences a spontaneous choice, there was, in actuality, no real free choice made.
Additionally, we must consider the reality of time, particularly the moment present, that is, the precise instant that past and future meet in the present passing moment as a defined and definite historical mark in time. If we consider that time is a passing of successive moments and the past is the historical logging of the finite certainty of those moments, then we can say that the past has a defined certainty. Simply put, once the moment passes it is gone and it can not be re-lived.
In reference to free will this is of particular interest. Choices are not choices in the past, for once a decision is made in space/time it was the only choice that could have been made. Once something is written in the record of history, it cannot be re-written. Because of this certainty, we cannot look back at choices made as hypothetical; we can only see them as sure realities that have passed.
So, in reference to past decisions, we are constrained to say that the definite nature of the past compels us to understand that in the light of history spontaneity and the availability of choice are irrelevant indicators of the presence of free will.
In summation, free will is an illusion because its dependence upon spontaneity and choice cannot be carried throughout the system. And, as choice meets present that passes into past, we must say that merely the presence of a definite, unalterable past inhibits our understandings of free will.
In the end, will is always impeded by the limitations of reality at the very point that the 'free willing agent' meets the present passing moment. This is not, obviously, to remove at the very least the appearance of choice, however, it is meant to highlight inherit challenges to conceptions we hold towards the human construct of free will. To be sure, this has been a less-than-exhaustive look into free will but perhaps it may stir up more consideration of this important categorical assertion of the human condition.
However, if we consider the two things necessary for 'free will' then with some reasoning it can be seen that neither of these things exist in the scope of space/time. Because both of these things are to be considered necessarily present for free will, they need to be addressed as one. The point, I submit, is that neither of them actually exists as we may think of them.
Spontaneity means that we may have the ability to make any momentary snap decision desired and that a variety of choices must be present at the moment of that decision's making. But by that very definition, spontaneity cannot be present while allowing for the maximum number of choices because at any specific moment only a limited number of choices are available. I cannot wake up and go to sleep at the same time.
We are constrained by reality, then, to limit the number of choices available to the spontaneous chooser, but does this in itself challenge the reality of free will? Consider a hypothetical scenario to illustrate the point. For this let us limit the available choices to two in an effort to perhaps address the concepts of spontaneity more acutely.
Say there are only two options on a menu. Both items are specialties of the restaurant but, nonetheless, any patron may order either one or the other, not both. One of them is a sweet dish, the other a salty one. A patron sits down at the booth and makes a spontaneous decision. However, I submit that the decision is not spontaneous but was in fact predicated upon a number of contributing factors (think preference, health, et al), meaning that the choice was not, in the most rigid sense, a free choice but was in fact a highly predictable one. In this sense, although the individual experiences a spontaneous choice, there was, in actuality, no real free choice made.
Additionally, we must consider the reality of time, particularly the moment present, that is, the precise instant that past and future meet in the present passing moment as a defined and definite historical mark in time. If we consider that time is a passing of successive moments and the past is the historical logging of the finite certainty of those moments, then we can say that the past has a defined certainty. Simply put, once the moment passes it is gone and it can not be re-lived.
In reference to free will this is of particular interest. Choices are not choices in the past, for once a decision is made in space/time it was the only choice that could have been made. Once something is written in the record of history, it cannot be re-written. Because of this certainty, we cannot look back at choices made as hypothetical; we can only see them as sure realities that have passed.
So, in reference to past decisions, we are constrained to say that the definite nature of the past compels us to understand that in the light of history spontaneity and the availability of choice are irrelevant indicators of the presence of free will.
In summation, free will is an illusion because its dependence upon spontaneity and choice cannot be carried throughout the system. And, as choice meets present that passes into past, we must say that merely the presence of a definite, unalterable past inhibits our understandings of free will.
In the end, will is always impeded by the limitations of reality at the very point that the 'free willing agent' meets the present passing moment. This is not, obviously, to remove at the very least the appearance of choice, however, it is meant to highlight inherit challenges to conceptions we hold towards the human construct of free will. To be sure, this has been a less-than-exhaustive look into free will but perhaps it may stir up more consideration of this important categorical assertion of the human condition.
Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Individualism: a false paradigm
There is a prevailing posture in western Christianity that values the personal experience of faith. This valuing, though in theory a profitable recognition that each person needs to 'claim' Christ for themselves, has done much damage in devaluing the covenant community.
To consider the personal experience of faith as of such importance that the individual is thought of more valuable than the community is to neglect one of the fundamental truths of the human condition, namely, that the person does not own themselves for by nature they belong to God.
This means that the personal experience is but an outpouring of our status as creatures, implicitly reckoning that we do not, in fact, own our experiences. As it were, these experiences that we would claim as our own are as much gifted to us by God as is the air we breath.
Individualism, if by that term we mean the value of the individual experience, must find its root in the Creator God, who has both chosen to diversify and unify creation together in Himself. Any attempt to interpret an experience apart from God's necessary input would be tantamount to amputating the nexus between creature-Creator.
By nature all human persons are contingent, both on the precepts of nature but also and more so dependent in the person and nature of God Himself. This reckons the personal experience of the individual human more like a single brush stroke in a vast watercolor painting, too focused on the bark to see the whole tree.
The distinctions of individualism would think each person as separate, and unique by virtue of that separation. However, this conceives that the separation of Genesis 3 precedes the unified intentional intertwining of Genesis 1 and 2.
In truth, the quest for autonomy leads the autonomous to a life apart from the life-giving blood of Christ, which is conferred and flows in His Church. The value of the individual is found in Christ. Any valuation of the personal experience that neglects this fact is, in truth, not valuable at all.
To consider the personal experience of faith as of such importance that the individual is thought of more valuable than the community is to neglect one of the fundamental truths of the human condition, namely, that the person does not own themselves for by nature they belong to God.
This means that the personal experience is but an outpouring of our status as creatures, implicitly reckoning that we do not, in fact, own our experiences. As it were, these experiences that we would claim as our own are as much gifted to us by God as is the air we breath.
Individualism, if by that term we mean the value of the individual experience, must find its root in the Creator God, who has both chosen to diversify and unify creation together in Himself. Any attempt to interpret an experience apart from God's necessary input would be tantamount to amputating the nexus between creature-Creator.
By nature all human persons are contingent, both on the precepts of nature but also and more so dependent in the person and nature of God Himself. This reckons the personal experience of the individual human more like a single brush stroke in a vast watercolor painting, too focused on the bark to see the whole tree.
The distinctions of individualism would think each person as separate, and unique by virtue of that separation. However, this conceives that the separation of Genesis 3 precedes the unified intentional intertwining of Genesis 1 and 2.
In truth, the quest for autonomy leads the autonomous to a life apart from the life-giving blood of Christ, which is conferred and flows in His Church. The value of the individual is found in Christ. Any valuation of the personal experience that neglects this fact is, in truth, not valuable at all.
Thursday, January 24, 2013
Minnesota Cold: a Philosophical Metaphor of Christianity
For the past week, those of us living in Minnesota have been dealing with tundra-esque cold. It is a bitter cold, the kind so abrasive that to leave any bit of skin showing will, within moments, less like winter than being electrocuted by dozens of tiny exposed wires. Cold. It is so cold that it has sparked a metaphor for life as a Christian in a decidedly un-Christian world.
Cold is an interesting designation, as it were. It seems insufficient to refer to something as 'cold' simply as a comment on it having the property of 'cold' as an attribute of its being. This would be like calling today cold; the designation of today as it being cold is predicated not as much on the 'coldness' perceived as it is dependent on the lack of that which is un-cold, namely, heat. This is to say that the more accurate way to speak of 'cold' is to say that it is an absence of heat.
Now considering that cold, in this regard, is no longer to be thought of as a possessed quality of the thing that is cold but is, rather, a designation regarding the thing's absence of heat, we can begin to recognize more aptly how one thing may be cold versus another that is un-cold.
For a thing to be considered cold and the coldness is not to be thought of as an inherent property of the cold thing, then, there is something else at play determining whether such a thing is, in fact, cold. This 'something else' that imprints itself upon a thing to make the thing cold is, to be sure, a manifold of factors. However, as it pertains to physical cold the two most prominent factors that determine a thing's 'coldness' is distance and angle. This is to say that a thing's coldness, in its status as being cold, is determined by the thing's distance and angle related to that which is un-cold, that is, hot.
The concept of distance is too obvious as to talk at length. Simply think of the heat felt from a candle's flame at two feet away versus two inches. As for the concept of the relevance of angle, this can be seen in the seasons of the earth. Because the earth spins at a particular 23.5 degree angle, when the northern hemisphere tilts away from the sun the heat radiating from the sun hits the earth like a flashlight angled at a plane. This renders the sufficient heat of the sun unable to heat the parts of the earth that are tilted away. Hence, the cutting cold of Minnesota winter.
Now think of this spiritually. God is light, light being the very essence of heat. The proximity and angle of anything to God, then, dictates whether it will be warmed or frigid. For humanity, this means that if we are are nearness to God, a spatial analogy of our spiritual estate, is the determinant of whether the person is hot by their closeness to God or absent of heat by his/her distance. Or, the person who lacks heat is due to their relative angle away from God.
But the metaphor goes on. Coldness exposes that which is hot; think of the heat radiating off a fire or the condensation of warm breath in the cold winter air. Spiritually, this is to say that the cold of spiritual darkness reveals most profoundly the heat of God's light. For a Christian this is what it means to be "in the world but not of it."
But beware of the warning. Things that are hot naturally devolve into things that are un-hot (think 2nd Law of Thermodynamics: the Law of Entropy). This means that if something that is heated is separated from the source of its heat and put in a heat-less environment, it will lose its heat until it itself is cold. Spiritually, this is the Christian who is lit in God's presence but when they leave God's closeness they lose their light and their affective heat. The longer the believer stays in the cold world and away from the permeating heat of God's presence, he may actually cease being light and heat because he does not possess the heat in and of himself for his heat is derived from God. Let us never forget this spiritual reality that creation speaks about!
Cold is an interesting designation, as it were. It seems insufficient to refer to something as 'cold' simply as a comment on it having the property of 'cold' as an attribute of its being. This would be like calling today cold; the designation of today as it being cold is predicated not as much on the 'coldness' perceived as it is dependent on the lack of that which is un-cold, namely, heat. This is to say that the more accurate way to speak of 'cold' is to say that it is an absence of heat.
Now considering that cold, in this regard, is no longer to be thought of as a possessed quality of the thing that is cold but is, rather, a designation regarding the thing's absence of heat, we can begin to recognize more aptly how one thing may be cold versus another that is un-cold.
For a thing to be considered cold and the coldness is not to be thought of as an inherent property of the cold thing, then, there is something else at play determining whether such a thing is, in fact, cold. This 'something else' that imprints itself upon a thing to make the thing cold is, to be sure, a manifold of factors. However, as it pertains to physical cold the two most prominent factors that determine a thing's 'coldness' is distance and angle. This is to say that a thing's coldness, in its status as being cold, is determined by the thing's distance and angle related to that which is un-cold, that is, hot.
The concept of distance is too obvious as to talk at length. Simply think of the heat felt from a candle's flame at two feet away versus two inches. As for the concept of the relevance of angle, this can be seen in the seasons of the earth. Because the earth spins at a particular 23.5 degree angle, when the northern hemisphere tilts away from the sun the heat radiating from the sun hits the earth like a flashlight angled at a plane. This renders the sufficient heat of the sun unable to heat the parts of the earth that are tilted away. Hence, the cutting cold of Minnesota winter.
Now think of this spiritually. God is light, light being the very essence of heat. The proximity and angle of anything to God, then, dictates whether it will be warmed or frigid. For humanity, this means that if we are are nearness to God, a spatial analogy of our spiritual estate, is the determinant of whether the person is hot by their closeness to God or absent of heat by his/her distance. Or, the person who lacks heat is due to their relative angle away from God.
But the metaphor goes on. Coldness exposes that which is hot; think of the heat radiating off a fire or the condensation of warm breath in the cold winter air. Spiritually, this is to say that the cold of spiritual darkness reveals most profoundly the heat of God's light. For a Christian this is what it means to be "in the world but not of it."
But beware of the warning. Things that are hot naturally devolve into things that are un-hot (think 2nd Law of Thermodynamics: the Law of Entropy). This means that if something that is heated is separated from the source of its heat and put in a heat-less environment, it will lose its heat until it itself is cold. Spiritually, this is the Christian who is lit in God's presence but when they leave God's closeness they lose their light and their affective heat. The longer the believer stays in the cold world and away from the permeating heat of God's presence, he may actually cease being light and heat because he does not possess the heat in and of himself for his heat is derived from God. Let us never forget this spiritual reality that creation speaks about!
Wednesday, January 23, 2013
Celebrity Morality a la Lance Armstrong
Athough being a musician throughout my childhood limited my athletic involvement, I have always been a sports enthusiast and a fan. Before we got rid of cable I used to love watching ESPN for my daily dose of the sports world. The abilities and physiques of the premier athletes simply astounds me and I am always quite rapt in my fandom. I even, against my passenger's wishes, listen to sports talk radio to get my fix.
Over the course of the past couple of weeks, and really the past couple of years, one of the main storylines that has overrun the sports world has been the situation with Lance Armstrong. Lance is a survivor of cancer, the founder of a huge cancer-fund non-profit, and , coincidentally, the winningest American racer in bicycle history. His narrative is inspirational and mythic, that was, until the truth of his drug usage came to the forefront.
Recently, he has been stripped of his seven Tour de Frace titles and been banned for life from the professional cycling world for his use of PEDs, particularly blood-doping. But what has been the proverbial nail-in-coffin for Armstrong has been his long-held vociferious defense that he did not and has never used these substances. However, as the torrent has enscossed America in his situation, Armstrong did an interview with Oprah in which he finally laid aside the facade and admitted to cheating by drug usage as well as covering it up.
While Armstrong's case is unique because of his rank and status as a celebrity, it is not all that uncommon in the world of sports. Would-be hall of fame Baseball players who've taken steroids and doping Olympians are but the tip of the iceberg. However, if we cut through the particulars of the various scenarios, a deeper truth is revealed.
Humans, and Americans in particular, herald greatness. We think of it as our American right and the very essence of what is great about America. Be it athletic prowess, musical mastery, politcal power, or even intellectual stature, we are devoted to idols of the court, the stage, the process, and the book. But we rarely take a look at the value of moral fortitude. That is, until the celebrity that we've deified does something immoral. Essentially, the moral integrity of the individual is struck up at the lack of moral fiber in the heralded celebrity.
I find this to be an interesting phenomenon for a number of reasons. First, it is striking that morality is only ever under consideration when evil morals are under examination. Consider the recent mass shootings, significant evidences for the presence of evil in the world, but it is only in hindsight and aftermath that the morality of life is ever considered. This seems, at least to me, to be a lopsided dilemma, like only checking your tires after they've fallen off the axel.
Additionally, and stemming from the previous point, it is an odd thing to exalt a person for their faculties in one area but to judge them in another. In the case of athletics, America would like to exalt the athlete for their athletic ability only to strike them for their moral failings. This is like paying someone $10 for an hour's work only to charge them $100 for parking.
The issue at hand, then, is not of the corruption and corruptability of the celebrity it is, rather, a statement about value. When push comes to shove, morality matters. Good and evil are real concerns for humanity. The exposures of the crimes of Nixon, of the betting of Pete Rose, or of the cheating of Lance Armstrong point not to the immorality of these men, although it does to be sure, it points to mankind's earnest inner yearnings for morality and truth. A yearning that can only be satiated by God, the moral law Giver.
Over the course of the past couple of weeks, and really the past couple of years, one of the main storylines that has overrun the sports world has been the situation with Lance Armstrong. Lance is a survivor of cancer, the founder of a huge cancer-fund non-profit, and , coincidentally, the winningest American racer in bicycle history. His narrative is inspirational and mythic, that was, until the truth of his drug usage came to the forefront.
Recently, he has been stripped of his seven Tour de Frace titles and been banned for life from the professional cycling world for his use of PEDs, particularly blood-doping. But what has been the proverbial nail-in-coffin for Armstrong has been his long-held vociferious defense that he did not and has never used these substances. However, as the torrent has enscossed America in his situation, Armstrong did an interview with Oprah in which he finally laid aside the facade and admitted to cheating by drug usage as well as covering it up.
While Armstrong's case is unique because of his rank and status as a celebrity, it is not all that uncommon in the world of sports. Would-be hall of fame Baseball players who've taken steroids and doping Olympians are but the tip of the iceberg. However, if we cut through the particulars of the various scenarios, a deeper truth is revealed.
Humans, and Americans in particular, herald greatness. We think of it as our American right and the very essence of what is great about America. Be it athletic prowess, musical mastery, politcal power, or even intellectual stature, we are devoted to idols of the court, the stage, the process, and the book. But we rarely take a look at the value of moral fortitude. That is, until the celebrity that we've deified does something immoral. Essentially, the moral integrity of the individual is struck up at the lack of moral fiber in the heralded celebrity.
I find this to be an interesting phenomenon for a number of reasons. First, it is striking that morality is only ever under consideration when evil morals are under examination. Consider the recent mass shootings, significant evidences for the presence of evil in the world, but it is only in hindsight and aftermath that the morality of life is ever considered. This seems, at least to me, to be a lopsided dilemma, like only checking your tires after they've fallen off the axel.
Additionally, and stemming from the previous point, it is an odd thing to exalt a person for their faculties in one area but to judge them in another. In the case of athletics, America would like to exalt the athlete for their athletic ability only to strike them for their moral failings. This is like paying someone $10 for an hour's work only to charge them $100 for parking.
The issue at hand, then, is not of the corruption and corruptability of the celebrity it is, rather, a statement about value. When push comes to shove, morality matters. Good and evil are real concerns for humanity. The exposures of the crimes of Nixon, of the betting of Pete Rose, or of the cheating of Lance Armstrong point not to the immorality of these men, although it does to be sure, it points to mankind's earnest inner yearnings for morality and truth. A yearning that can only be satiated by God, the moral law Giver.
Monday, January 21, 2013
Thinking about God
A. W. Tozer, in his landmark Knowledge of the Holy, writes: "What comes into our minds when we think about God is the most important thing about us." He adds, "Worship is pure or base as the worshiper entertains high or low thoughts of God. For this reason the gravest question before the Church is always God Himself, and the most portentous fact about any man is not what he at a given time may say or do, but what he in his deep heart conceives God to be like."
Understanding God is one of the great concerns of humanity. It stretches the very bounds of languages and thought for man to endeavor to comprehend God. To be sure, the vastness of the topic pushes the discussion into the realm of metaphor; we can only describe what God is like, never come to full comprehension of who He actually is.
There is also a fundamental obstacle to humanity understanding God. This obstacle is based on the limitations of man as they meet the unlimited infinitude of God. The equation is uneven; finitude cannot ascend to know infinitude because all of the categories of finite thought are incapable to address that which lies outside of its own faculties. The only way for finite man to know anything about the Infinite One is for Him to initiate that knowledge, to reveal Himself willingly.
In this sense, the revelation of God is a self-revelatory, as in, it is God's revelation of His self. And considering that God does not need to reveal Himself to Himself, this self-revelation is intentional, for the purpose of God revealing Himself to man. This is what revelation is all about; and God has revealed Himself: in the nature of creation, in His Holy Word of Scripture, and, ultimately, in the incarnation of His Son Jesus.
Faith, as it were, is not at the onset concerned with the content of that revelation but more that the revelation has taken place at all. That is to say that the need for introductory faith is only in as much as humanity believes that God exists in Himself and that in order for us to know anything about Him at all, He is the one who must reveal that message. We rely on Him for any information about Him.
So even in the exercise of our cognitive faculties in the pursuit of Him the human is, in fact, a revelation of God unto himself. This recognition that the abilities of reason and of thought are, in themselves, a revelation of God unto mankind is but an introduction, a beginning in the reception of God's self-revelation to mankind, which culminates in the person of Jesus. But praise be to God that He has revealed Himself at all!
Friday, January 18, 2013
Perception of Love is not the Same as Love
I have had many a friend claim to be in love. The scene goes something like this: boy meets girl, girl likes boy. The two of them begin communicating and spending time with one another, mostly fun stuff to get to know each other better. After some measure of time, the seriousness of their affections for one another began to crystallize until finally, often unexpectedly, one of the couple says those three words: I love you. To which the reply is a reciprocation, a return of that affection by the same words.
Not in any way to discredit the reality of the situation, it needs to be said that this act is one of emotionality and is prone to passing as emotions do. Without fail, this sentiment transforms over time and shifts in a variety of ways. The initial excitement fades, the enthusiasm dissipates, and the enthrall at the other slumps under the hands of regularity. What was once new and fashionable becomes old and out of style. This, of course, is not to diminish the affections but to say that they have been altered over the course of time.
Sometimes, perhaps more often than humans would care to admit, as the previous passion dissolves and the couple starts to see one another in new lights that conflict with their original affections, the pair began to question what they really meant by I love you.
The truth is that there is a distinct difference between love and the perception of love. Love is a deep activity that stems from the core. It is a submission and a sacrifice as much as it is a desire for the other. It is an output that does not demand the reciprocal. Love does expect to receive it nonetheless, but not as a merit of love poured out more as a latent realization that love is a loop, like playing playing catch in such a way that you are simultaneously throwing and catching.
Being in love, though, is but a perception of love. It is but a shadow left under love's light. Considering the complexity of love as it is, any reception of love requires an interpretation of that love, as in, when someone loves another, the other must perceive that love. Coincidentally, the perception of love is, then, not love much as smelling a cologne is not the same as the cologne itself. It would not be inaccurate to paint this perception as somewhat elusive apart from clearly defined understandings of what love is, indicating at the same time what love is not.
Love is defined in Jesus. He is the measurement of love. It is how He fulfilled the promises of God in His life, His death at the hands of His accusers, and His resurrection that define love in the ultimate sense. It is in Christ Jesus that we see true love in all its convicting glory and utter awesomeness. Faith is the only appropriate response to that revelation, faith in the love that has been shown by God Himself.
Faith that love has occurred and is occurring in the relationship between God and man is the perception of that love. It should be a reminder to us in all of our relationship that any fickleness or skepticism is not to be pressed on love, as it were, but should be blamed upon on anemic, Christ-less definitions of love. Remembering the ultimate love that is Christ Himself will protect us in all our perceptions in life, not the least of which being in the area of love.
Not in any way to discredit the reality of the situation, it needs to be said that this act is one of emotionality and is prone to passing as emotions do. Without fail, this sentiment transforms over time and shifts in a variety of ways. The initial excitement fades, the enthusiasm dissipates, and the enthrall at the other slumps under the hands of regularity. What was once new and fashionable becomes old and out of style. This, of course, is not to diminish the affections but to say that they have been altered over the course of time.
Sometimes, perhaps more often than humans would care to admit, as the previous passion dissolves and the couple starts to see one another in new lights that conflict with their original affections, the pair began to question what they really meant by I love you.
The truth is that there is a distinct difference between love and the perception of love. Love is a deep activity that stems from the core. It is a submission and a sacrifice as much as it is a desire for the other. It is an output that does not demand the reciprocal. Love does expect to receive it nonetheless, but not as a merit of love poured out more as a latent realization that love is a loop, like playing playing catch in such a way that you are simultaneously throwing and catching.
Being in love, though, is but a perception of love. It is but a shadow left under love's light. Considering the complexity of love as it is, any reception of love requires an interpretation of that love, as in, when someone loves another, the other must perceive that love. Coincidentally, the perception of love is, then, not love much as smelling a cologne is not the same as the cologne itself. It would not be inaccurate to paint this perception as somewhat elusive apart from clearly defined understandings of what love is, indicating at the same time what love is not.
Love is defined in Jesus. He is the measurement of love. It is how He fulfilled the promises of God in His life, His death at the hands of His accusers, and His resurrection that define love in the ultimate sense. It is in Christ Jesus that we see true love in all its convicting glory and utter awesomeness. Faith is the only appropriate response to that revelation, faith in the love that has been shown by God Himself.
Faith that love has occurred and is occurring in the relationship between God and man is the perception of that love. It should be a reminder to us in all of our relationship that any fickleness or skepticism is not to be pressed on love, as it were, but should be blamed upon on anemic, Christ-less definitions of love. Remembering the ultimate love that is Christ Himself will protect us in all our perceptions in life, not the least of which being in the area of love.
Sunday, January 13, 2013
Christianity: Not just another Spiritual Philosophy
One of the great and forceful enemies to Christianity has, in recent decades, been the ever growing propensity to deem Christianity as merely another of the many possible and tenable philosophies that is offered to the modern world. To think of Christianity categorically of the same kind as that of any other philosophical posture or spiritual idea is akin to amputate Christianity from, as it were, Christ.
On the contrary, Christianity is not and has not ever been a set of abstract philosophical postulations severed from any actual reality. Christianity is and has always been a set of historical facts, actual space-time history that demands a verdict on the part of the listener: faith or not.
Christianity should not be allowed to devolve into mere postulations of theology as if abstract theological postulation could ever come close to the actual Christianity that is found in the person and resurrection of Jesus the Nazarene. Theology, though good and necessary exercise, is grounded solely in Christ. To sever Christianity from Jesus, the actual factual person of history, would be a travesty and would relish it impotent and irrelevant in the stream of spirituality.
Instead, Christianity is intimately and necessarily tied to the actual events of history, for it is in these events that God has stepped into creation and enacted His grace in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazarene. These things should never leave our lips as we discuss Christianity and its power to transform lives for God!
On the contrary, Christianity is not and has not ever been a set of abstract philosophical postulations severed from any actual reality. Christianity is and has always been a set of historical facts, actual space-time history that demands a verdict on the part of the listener: faith or not.
Christianity should not be allowed to devolve into mere postulations of theology as if abstract theological postulation could ever come close to the actual Christianity that is found in the person and resurrection of Jesus the Nazarene. Theology, though good and necessary exercise, is grounded solely in Christ. To sever Christianity from Jesus, the actual factual person of history, would be a travesty and would relish it impotent and irrelevant in the stream of spirituality.
Instead, Christianity is intimately and necessarily tied to the actual events of history, for it is in these events that God has stepped into creation and enacted His grace in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazarene. These things should never leave our lips as we discuss Christianity and its power to transform lives for God!
Tuesday, December 11, 2012
The Pleasure of Novelty and its Diminishing Satisfaction
Novelty can generally be regarded as that most fleeting perception and fascination of something that is made exciting and thrilling simply because of its attractive newness. To be sure, encountering any new and pleasurable thing is almost always delivered with some sense of novelty, but as time passes novelty naturally fades and the true pleasure of a thing can be faithfully seen and asserted. Novelty, then, is not, in actuality, a quality that one thing possesses inherently but stems from the ideas of Fashionability and Trend.
The excitement afforded by novelty is one not of pleasure, in pleasure's true sense, but of temporality in the emotional sense. This is to say that novelty is an emotional reaction to the reception of a new and fashionable thing, be it material or relational. In the end, because novelty is not inherent to the thing itself but is a response of feeling and taste, novelty has cannot be satisfying in itself but is a non-lasting impression of something pleasurable.
However, because novelty is received with a thrill, novelty can be confused with pleasure as misconstrued as the pleasure itself. As a result of this misconception, that which is truly pleasurable is substituted for that which is merely novel and new. The net effects of this lopsided illusion is that pleasure will no longer be cherished and pleasurable as it is, but will be replaced with the counterfeit gratifications of novelty. Essentially, novelty will become that which is considered satisfying while that which is truly satisfying, that which is godly and good, is neglected in favor for what is new, fashionable, trendy, and easily accesible.
But because novelty is by nature fleeting, the law of diminishing returns will be even more in play than usual. The response, on the part of the individual given over to this sort of confusion, is that novelty will be continually sought out and lusted after. In a real sense, the person will never be content and will lack any true satisfaction because they will never linger long enough before passing on to the next new, novel thing. This is like licking the steak without chewing it before quickly moving to lick the bread too. No satisfaction, just a wanting desire for the novelty of something else, something new.
In order to overcome this illusion, the person must first reckon with the discrepancy, the flaw in their reasoning comes not from their want of joy and pleasure but in where he or she has sourced it, namely, in novelty. Secondly, the person must be made aware of the vanity and perishing nature of fashionability and trendiness, here today to be swept away by the tide of tomorrow's new wave. Lastly, the person must remember that, above all else, the source for all satisfaction and pleasure is found in thankfulness in giving glory to God. Any attempt to replace this is but a shadowy imitation.
The excitement afforded by novelty is one not of pleasure, in pleasure's true sense, but of temporality in the emotional sense. This is to say that novelty is an emotional reaction to the reception of a new and fashionable thing, be it material or relational. In the end, because novelty is not inherent to the thing itself but is a response of feeling and taste, novelty has cannot be satisfying in itself but is a non-lasting impression of something pleasurable.
However, because novelty is received with a thrill, novelty can be confused with pleasure as misconstrued as the pleasure itself. As a result of this misconception, that which is truly pleasurable is substituted for that which is merely novel and new. The net effects of this lopsided illusion is that pleasure will no longer be cherished and pleasurable as it is, but will be replaced with the counterfeit gratifications of novelty. Essentially, novelty will become that which is considered satisfying while that which is truly satisfying, that which is godly and good, is neglected in favor for what is new, fashionable, trendy, and easily accesible.
But because novelty is by nature fleeting, the law of diminishing returns will be even more in play than usual. The response, on the part of the individual given over to this sort of confusion, is that novelty will be continually sought out and lusted after. In a real sense, the person will never be content and will lack any true satisfaction because they will never linger long enough before passing on to the next new, novel thing. This is like licking the steak without chewing it before quickly moving to lick the bread too. No satisfaction, just a wanting desire for the novelty of something else, something new.
In order to overcome this illusion, the person must first reckon with the discrepancy, the flaw in their reasoning comes not from their want of joy and pleasure but in where he or she has sourced it, namely, in novelty. Secondly, the person must be made aware of the vanity and perishing nature of fashionability and trendiness, here today to be swept away by the tide of tomorrow's new wave. Lastly, the person must remember that, above all else, the source for all satisfaction and pleasure is found in thankfulness in giving glory to God. Any attempt to replace this is but a shadowy imitation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
