This is the first part of the 3 stories from Hinduism and second post in the 5-part series. This is about Sudama, a Brahmin who is a reincarnation of the immortal sage Narada in Hindu mythology.
Sudama looked up from his bed at his wife and three kids sprawled out on the dirt floor in exhaustion and hunger. Their lean bodies expanding and contracting with labored breaths in their stupor. He looked up at the heavens and wondered why he, a poor devout Brahmin suffered this way when he had given himself to a life of pure devotion. He thought of his childhood with Krsna who was revealed to him as an incarnation of Vishnu the object of his worship, the supreme deity that he lived each day to meditate on. Krsna had moved beyond the squalor and simplicity of the Yadavs, the cowherds he was raised with, and taken his place as a royal ruler at Dwarka in the splendor of a magnificent palace, devoted subjects and riding on the crest of breathtaking military victories against the forces of evil.
Sudama's wife looked up at him and asked him what he was thinking. "About Krsna, my dear. Didn't you hear of his siege of the Kuru kingdom?"
"Yes, I did." said Susheela, tucking the loose end of her tattered saree into its hip. "I was wondering if you could request him to help us."
Sudama was silent. Susheela looked into his face. She knew what he was thinking. "You don't have to, you know."
Tears came into his eyes as he looked at Susheela. They had no clothes except the ones they wore. The food was meagre, the alms they received from people they prayed for. There was little left and if they did not get some soon they will surely die. All this in the middle of a devastating drought in Mathura.
"I will go, my dear." Sudama stood up, his mind made up. Surely if anyone would help, it had to be Krsna. After all he had lived out his days worshipping him.
As Sudama prepared to go on his journey by foot, Susheela tore a part of her saree's end and packed together some crisp rice, mingled with the dust of their house, wrapping it in the worn cloth as a gift for Sudama's friend.
For days he walked through the forests that ranged between the cities of Mathura in Northern India to the Western city of Dwarka. As he approached the citadel, he looked up to see the goldem dome of its palace glittering in the noonday sun. But Sudama's mind was filled with awe on meeting his friend.
He approached the palace doors and the two Yadav guards glanced enquiringly at his appearance. He explained that he was Krsna's friend. The guards looked shocked, but deciding in their minds that this was a Brahmin in whom there is no falsehood, they decided to check with Krsna himself.
As Krsna heard that Sudama was at the door, he came to meet him himself, embracing his long lost friend.
Days passed as Sudama listened in rapt attention to Krsna's telling of his exploits, the lessons he had imparted to Arjun at the battle of Kurukshetra, the moral quandaries he had faced, defined and solved in war, justice, judgment and relationships.
In Krsna's company Sudama forgot his poverty and was filled with joy. As he prepared to return the thought of requesting a gift was far from his mind. Perhaps it was the unalloyed joy of being in Krsna's presence. Perhaps it was that a tiny voice at the back of his head kept telling him not to ask anything while the friendship was still pure and unworldly. Sudama simply did not ask for anything. As Krsna rode out to meet another evil enemy in battle, he packed up his belongings and bade farewell to Rukmini, Krsna's wife, and left for home.
As he walked back, Sudama thinks about his friendship and his heart is filled with gratitude. He finally reached the forested area where he made his home and suddely realizes what he had failed to do. Weeks had passed. Apprehensive as to whether Susheela and the kids were still alive, he turned the corner of the acacia tree that marked the beginning of the clearance which was his frontyard. He looked up and what he saw took his breath away- a magnificent palance in the place of his lowly thatched hut! Susheela had seen him coming up and ran out to meet him, dressed in a fine saree. Sudama realized that his unspoken needs were met in the worship of his Lord. He vowed to continue in his austerity as he felt that it was desirable and good to be away from the transient pleasures of life and to be utterly devoted to God.
Showing posts with label Skepticism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Skepticism. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
"Christ-Bearing" Scenarios in Hinduism- Part 1 of 5
I'm putting together three beloved stories from Hindu mythology to illustrate the idea that Christianity is either the "fulfilment" or the "crisis" of Hinduism. The three stories are based on 3 personalities- (1)Sudama, (2)Harischandra and (3)Arjun. This is in 5 parts, this current post counting for an intro, then the three stories and finally their elucidation in the context of Christianity. Please bear with me as this will be a long term (1-2 months) project as I put the material together. Also do not be surprised if there are other posts in between.
My goal is to present Christ as the end of our desires. He is clearly the fulfilment of the Law and the Prophets in the hitory and tradition of the Hebrews. But if the Law needed to be fulfilled and thereby superceded, then the traditions of the non-Hebrew world could be understood to face a crisis of fulfilment at the end of their questions. This is the way I'm hoping to posit the Christian Gospel. So here goes.
My goal is to present Christ as the end of our desires. He is clearly the fulfilment of the Law and the Prophets in the hitory and tradition of the Hebrews. But if the Law needed to be fulfilled and thereby superceded, then the traditions of the non-Hebrew world could be understood to face a crisis of fulfilment at the end of their questions. This is the way I'm hoping to posit the Christian Gospel. So here goes.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
The Question of Liberation Theology
It is a comfort to one's soul to fight evil that is outside of us- injustice, oppression, poverty and so on. In a sense this is also a part of fighting evil within ourselves- the evil of apathy, greed and selfishnessness. However the liberation theorists I have encountered usually give up some of the virtues of the more orhotodox Christians in order to uphold the above values. Some of these may be personal values like clean language, grace, sexual fidelity and constraint, faithfulness to the the whole of the Bible in its inerrancy and resisting the temptation to take some of it with a pinch of salt, patience with people who do not readily subscribe to their thinking and so on.
There are people who respond to this by saying that Christians have no business "being nice", rather they need to be righteous, meaning uphold social justice. While it is true that there is a lot of prissy piety out there in Christian circles reflecting in our music, dressing and a list of do's and don'ts that reduce our faith into Pharisiasm, it is equally true that these values stem from a desire not just to do right by our fellow man but to please God in our thinking and actions. While Christians can enjoy a glass of wine, they often decline refills due to a desire not to go overboard.
Orthodox Christians often accuse liberation theorists of trading away this kind of personal holiness for their "causes". As Malcolm Muggeridge once said, it is far easier and more self-sffirming to hold a placard out in a street protest than actually do something righteous. In my view this is only partially true. The fact is, most liberation theology adherents I know have struggled long and hard with personal sin and guilt to the point where they have questioned themselves and the general interpretation of sin in God's Word. This manifests itself in our politics. In North America, the question of gay marriage is a case in point.
Mark Young, Denver Seminary President's point about voting in a way that allows the Gospel the best possible access into people's lives, speaks to us clearly here. Do we think homosexual behavior is sinful? If so, is it anymore sinful than a child stealing a cookie? Are we guilty of anything far wrose or at least, equally bad? I think most Christians would agree that sin, sinful behavior, propensity to sin, ambiguity about sin and its definition are all part of our messed up nature and mental make up. Is it possible for a Christian to lovingly reach out to the gay community with Christ rathern than condemnation, and just let Christ lead him or her into a full understanding of the Truth (which if we are honest we must admit we too are only still learning)? I think it is.
You see, as my friend Mat pointed out in the last blog post, simply because a liberal espouses liberation theology, it doesn't automatically become wrong. Conservatives allowed liberals to corner the market on this thinking. In the meanwhile they have failed to see the essential connection between Christ's message of personal salvation and the idea of opposing sin everywhere- both inside and outside of ourselves. Liberals in turn have also failed to see the connection between the sin or evil that exists out there in the world and the very personal sin in our own hearts (and not just in terms of being able to have more resources while the 'poor' does not).
To the conservative I say, I wonder what you would have done when Jesus whipped the money-changers out of the temple. To the liberal I say, I wonder what you would have done when Jesus let the repentant Mary Magdalene pour her life savings on to His feet in the form of the expensive perfume.
It is telling that Jesus lets Judas know that the 'poor' will always be around. I've often wondered what this means. Could it mean that we are living in a 'Long Defeat', as JRR Tolkien said and Sara Groves sang, and Dr. Paul Farmer believes is the end of all our labor, even his labor of hope in Haiti?
In the book on Farmer's remarkable work of sacrifice and justice in Haiti, “Mountains Beyond Mountains”, author Tracy Kidder uses this phrase, 'The Long Defeat'. Dr. Farmer is quoted in this book:
"I have fought the long defeat and brought other people on to fight the long defeat, and I’m not going to stop because we keep losing. Now I actually think sometimes we may win. I don’t dislike victory…. We want to be on the winning team, but at the risk of turning our backs on the losers, no, it’s not worth it. So you fight the long defeat."
Farmer has made it known in other interviews that there are glimpses of the [final] victory that we get on earth, but our earthly efforts in and of themselves are a series of long defeats that lead up into the final victory that is not of the earth (this is all my paraphrasing).
If this is indeed the case (and Dr. Farmer is an adherent of liberation theology though I'm not sure to what extend he takes it), then is our vision of heaven simply a heaven on earth, where we bring justice to those who do not have it? What is justice after all? If everyone were wealthy will that suffice? Surely not. If everyone were mindful of others and generous will that be it? Will not there by still incidents which are beyond our comprehension- natural disasters, death, severance of relationships? At such a point when we have achieved (this is an assumption) all there is to achieve in terms of social justice and redemption, but we feel the pain of being human, would we then question God as to why He made us this way? Would we then conclude, after all is said and done, that God is simply a social construct, and that He has outlived His purpose? If that is all there is to life, would we feel the pinch of a nagging hope that there is more to heaven than out unidimensional view of earthly justice?
If there is indeed a heaven beyond the earth, then is it in anyway connected to our recreating such a heaven here on earth? What did Jesus mean when he taught us to pray 'You Kingdom come; Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven"? Or, do we simply sigh and say that all injustices will be righted in heaven and do absolutely nothing about earthly injustices? Why are we the 'tweeners' who live between the two earthly advents of Christ? What is our purpose here on earth? If we have none, maybe they should hold us all down in baptism so we would go straight to heaven.
Clearly the liberation theorists and the orthodox Christians have a lot to learn from each other. We cannot offord to trade insults or dismiss each other because there is a lot of work that is still undone.
As someone who came to faith in college firmly among those who hold the orthodox view, I spent about 13 years coming around to respecting liberation theology. It could have taken a far shorter time frame. Let me explain why.
Life in Christ is a journey when we learn more and more about His character and therefore His purposes. It is remarkable that the vast majority of liberation theorists I know actually had a conversion experience that the orthodox Christians would view as a clearly identifiable point of coming into salvific faith- the point at which one prays the conversion prayer and is ushered into the Kingdom. Over the years, especially as they worked with the 'poor', they moved into a theology that is decidedly unorthodox. Very rarely have I encountered someone who was 'born again' into liberation theology. The passion that accompanies personal salvation from personal sin has been key in the vast majority of these cases to their ardent witness and eventual participation in social justice movements. As Sara Groves sang in her characteristic story-song manner, 'I love because He loved me when I had nothing.' This is Biblical. When we are set free we are free to give and set others free. If we have not experienced freedom our passion must be questioned (gently). Some of us may even believe we have always been free simply because we have not experienced the poverty that others do. The fact is, we are all- without exception- slaves until Christ sets us free. Some are economic slaves, others are sexual slaves, yet others slaves of affluence, education deprivation, racial injustice, indifference, passion, addictive behaviors, and on and on. Freedom in Christ is clearly what inspires us to be modern day abolitionists.
In my early years in Christ I encountered many dear and well-meaning friends who tried to talk me into liberation theology. It may have worked if they had helped me connect the dots between personal accountability to God and personal accountability to people. Personal sin and external evil. Personal salvation and social redemption. It may have helped if someone sat down with me and envision for me the radical and radically true idea that personal accountability to people is not simply an option, one of the many 'mionistries', like 'mercy ministry'; but an essential part of the salvation that Christ has won for me. It may have helped if I could only understand then what I understand now- that being incarnatiunal in people's lives is the only way to bring Christ to them; just as Jesus was and is incarnational into the human experience and our own lives. It may have helped if I could only understand that being incarnational necessarily means being sacrificed- whether on the cross or in terms of a life spent with people who need us.
A dear friend who tried to talk to me about liberation theology had a radically unorthodox interpretation of the Bible. He insisted, without any reference to Biblical, traditional, logical or other evidence, that the Antichrist in the Bible referred to us, people who do nothing to oppose injustice in the world. Other liberation theorists try to make the case that sin is only the enjoyment of resources at the cost of others. Broadly this means that those of us who are relatively well off (anyone who has a roof over her head and food to eat is in this category) are well off only because in a direct or indirect way we exploit or have historically exploited or are benefitting from such exploitation of those outside this category. If anyone tried to interpret the whole of the Bible this way, the argument does not go far without encountering serious challenges. What would they say about the apostle Paul's suggestions to Christian slaves? He said in 1 Corinthians 7:20-22, "Each one should remain in the situation which he was in when God called him. Were you a slave when you were called? Don't let it trouble you--although if you can gain your freedom, do so. For he who was a slave when he was called by the Lord is the Lord's freedman; similarly, he who was a free man when he was called is Christ's slave."
Lastly, I realize that we are all on a journey to discover truth. We need to keep our eyes wide open to God's visions. I realize of course that orthodox Christians also tend to be obnoxious in their witness to liberation theorists. Who hasn't encountered those of us (and perhaps we ourselves may be guilty of this) who rebuke a fellow believer with a glass of win in his hand but practise fiscal dishonesty in tax returns, property purchases and divisive church politics, not to mention the sex scandals that have rocked both the Evangelical and Catholic leadership? The charge of hypocrisy is the third serious form of sin or evil that we encounter (personal sin and evil that is external and unattached to humans are the others) in the list of (I would also say ONLY) objections to Christianity or belief in God in general.
The fact remains though that we can and must work together. While I see and experience Christianity for the unique experience it is, I also know that the desire for justice is within all of us- atheist, Christian, Hindu or anyone. I wouldn't go so far as to describe it as a spark of the divine in us or anywhere near it, but I would consider it as God-given, and a part of the appeal that draws us to Christ. If there is sin out there we must work together. If people of different persuasions could begin a discussion on the deepest matters in life, I'm convinced that social redemption, and not philosophical debate, is the beginning.
There are people who respond to this by saying that Christians have no business "being nice", rather they need to be righteous, meaning uphold social justice. While it is true that there is a lot of prissy piety out there in Christian circles reflecting in our music, dressing and a list of do's and don'ts that reduce our faith into Pharisiasm, it is equally true that these values stem from a desire not just to do right by our fellow man but to please God in our thinking and actions. While Christians can enjoy a glass of wine, they often decline refills due to a desire not to go overboard.
Orthodox Christians often accuse liberation theorists of trading away this kind of personal holiness for their "causes". As Malcolm Muggeridge once said, it is far easier and more self-sffirming to hold a placard out in a street protest than actually do something righteous. In my view this is only partially true. The fact is, most liberation theology adherents I know have struggled long and hard with personal sin and guilt to the point where they have questioned themselves and the general interpretation of sin in God's Word. This manifests itself in our politics. In North America, the question of gay marriage is a case in point.
Mark Young, Denver Seminary President's point about voting in a way that allows the Gospel the best possible access into people's lives, speaks to us clearly here. Do we think homosexual behavior is sinful? If so, is it anymore sinful than a child stealing a cookie? Are we guilty of anything far wrose or at least, equally bad? I think most Christians would agree that sin, sinful behavior, propensity to sin, ambiguity about sin and its definition are all part of our messed up nature and mental make up. Is it possible for a Christian to lovingly reach out to the gay community with Christ rathern than condemnation, and just let Christ lead him or her into a full understanding of the Truth (which if we are honest we must admit we too are only still learning)? I think it is.
You see, as my friend Mat pointed out in the last blog post, simply because a liberal espouses liberation theology, it doesn't automatically become wrong. Conservatives allowed liberals to corner the market on this thinking. In the meanwhile they have failed to see the essential connection between Christ's message of personal salvation and the idea of opposing sin everywhere- both inside and outside of ourselves. Liberals in turn have also failed to see the connection between the sin or evil that exists out there in the world and the very personal sin in our own hearts (and not just in terms of being able to have more resources while the 'poor' does not).
To the conservative I say, I wonder what you would have done when Jesus whipped the money-changers out of the temple. To the liberal I say, I wonder what you would have done when Jesus let the repentant Mary Magdalene pour her life savings on to His feet in the form of the expensive perfume.
It is telling that Jesus lets Judas know that the 'poor' will always be around. I've often wondered what this means. Could it mean that we are living in a 'Long Defeat', as JRR Tolkien said and Sara Groves sang, and Dr. Paul Farmer believes is the end of all our labor, even his labor of hope in Haiti?
In the book on Farmer's remarkable work of sacrifice and justice in Haiti, “Mountains Beyond Mountains”, author Tracy Kidder uses this phrase, 'The Long Defeat'. Dr. Farmer is quoted in this book:
"I have fought the long defeat and brought other people on to fight the long defeat, and I’m not going to stop because we keep losing. Now I actually think sometimes we may win. I don’t dislike victory…. We want to be on the winning team, but at the risk of turning our backs on the losers, no, it’s not worth it. So you fight the long defeat."
Farmer has made it known in other interviews that there are glimpses of the [final] victory that we get on earth, but our earthly efforts in and of themselves are a series of long defeats that lead up into the final victory that is not of the earth (this is all my paraphrasing).
If this is indeed the case (and Dr. Farmer is an adherent of liberation theology though I'm not sure to what extend he takes it), then is our vision of heaven simply a heaven on earth, where we bring justice to those who do not have it? What is justice after all? If everyone were wealthy will that suffice? Surely not. If everyone were mindful of others and generous will that be it? Will not there by still incidents which are beyond our comprehension- natural disasters, death, severance of relationships? At such a point when we have achieved (this is an assumption) all there is to achieve in terms of social justice and redemption, but we feel the pain of being human, would we then question God as to why He made us this way? Would we then conclude, after all is said and done, that God is simply a social construct, and that He has outlived His purpose? If that is all there is to life, would we feel the pinch of a nagging hope that there is more to heaven than out unidimensional view of earthly justice?
If there is indeed a heaven beyond the earth, then is it in anyway connected to our recreating such a heaven here on earth? What did Jesus mean when he taught us to pray 'You Kingdom come; Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven"? Or, do we simply sigh and say that all injustices will be righted in heaven and do absolutely nothing about earthly injustices? Why are we the 'tweeners' who live between the two earthly advents of Christ? What is our purpose here on earth? If we have none, maybe they should hold us all down in baptism so we would go straight to heaven.
Clearly the liberation theorists and the orthodox Christians have a lot to learn from each other. We cannot offord to trade insults or dismiss each other because there is a lot of work that is still undone.
As someone who came to faith in college firmly among those who hold the orthodox view, I spent about 13 years coming around to respecting liberation theology. It could have taken a far shorter time frame. Let me explain why.
Life in Christ is a journey when we learn more and more about His character and therefore His purposes. It is remarkable that the vast majority of liberation theorists I know actually had a conversion experience that the orthodox Christians would view as a clearly identifiable point of coming into salvific faith- the point at which one prays the conversion prayer and is ushered into the Kingdom. Over the years, especially as they worked with the 'poor', they moved into a theology that is decidedly unorthodox. Very rarely have I encountered someone who was 'born again' into liberation theology. The passion that accompanies personal salvation from personal sin has been key in the vast majority of these cases to their ardent witness and eventual participation in social justice movements. As Sara Groves sang in her characteristic story-song manner, 'I love because He loved me when I had nothing.' This is Biblical. When we are set free we are free to give and set others free. If we have not experienced freedom our passion must be questioned (gently). Some of us may even believe we have always been free simply because we have not experienced the poverty that others do. The fact is, we are all- without exception- slaves until Christ sets us free. Some are economic slaves, others are sexual slaves, yet others slaves of affluence, education deprivation, racial injustice, indifference, passion, addictive behaviors, and on and on. Freedom in Christ is clearly what inspires us to be modern day abolitionists.
In my early years in Christ I encountered many dear and well-meaning friends who tried to talk me into liberation theology. It may have worked if they had helped me connect the dots between personal accountability to God and personal accountability to people. Personal sin and external evil. Personal salvation and social redemption. It may have helped if someone sat down with me and envision for me the radical and radically true idea that personal accountability to people is not simply an option, one of the many 'mionistries', like 'mercy ministry'; but an essential part of the salvation that Christ has won for me. It may have helped if I could only understand then what I understand now- that being incarnatiunal in people's lives is the only way to bring Christ to them; just as Jesus was and is incarnational into the human experience and our own lives. It may have helped if I could only understand that being incarnational necessarily means being sacrificed- whether on the cross or in terms of a life spent with people who need us.
A dear friend who tried to talk to me about liberation theology had a radically unorthodox interpretation of the Bible. He insisted, without any reference to Biblical, traditional, logical or other evidence, that the Antichrist in the Bible referred to us, people who do nothing to oppose injustice in the world. Other liberation theorists try to make the case that sin is only the enjoyment of resources at the cost of others. Broadly this means that those of us who are relatively well off (anyone who has a roof over her head and food to eat is in this category) are well off only because in a direct or indirect way we exploit or have historically exploited or are benefitting from such exploitation of those outside this category. If anyone tried to interpret the whole of the Bible this way, the argument does not go far without encountering serious challenges. What would they say about the apostle Paul's suggestions to Christian slaves? He said in 1 Corinthians 7:20-22, "Each one should remain in the situation which he was in when God called him. Were you a slave when you were called? Don't let it trouble you--although if you can gain your freedom, do so. For he who was a slave when he was called by the Lord is the Lord's freedman; similarly, he who was a free man when he was called is Christ's slave."
Lastly, I realize that we are all on a journey to discover truth. We need to keep our eyes wide open to God's visions. I realize of course that orthodox Christians also tend to be obnoxious in their witness to liberation theorists. Who hasn't encountered those of us (and perhaps we ourselves may be guilty of this) who rebuke a fellow believer with a glass of win in his hand but practise fiscal dishonesty in tax returns, property purchases and divisive church politics, not to mention the sex scandals that have rocked both the Evangelical and Catholic leadership? The charge of hypocrisy is the third serious form of sin or evil that we encounter (personal sin and evil that is external and unattached to humans are the others) in the list of (I would also say ONLY) objections to Christianity or belief in God in general.
The fact remains though that we can and must work together. While I see and experience Christianity for the unique experience it is, I also know that the desire for justice is within all of us- atheist, Christian, Hindu or anyone. I wouldn't go so far as to describe it as a spark of the divine in us or anywhere near it, but I would consider it as God-given, and a part of the appeal that draws us to Christ. If there is sin out there we must work together. If people of different persuasions could begin a discussion on the deepest matters in life, I'm convinced that social redemption, and not philosophical debate, is the beginning.
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Syriana- A Late Review
I've had an overdose of political and espionage thrillers, thanks to Netflix's online streaming into our TV. I hadn't watched the 2005 landmark Syriana before, but I did a few minutes ago; and as usual I emerged with a feeling of having learned little.
Syriana is a brilliant film. It effectively traces connections between the Middle Eastern "Great Game(s)" and the strong motives behind US meddling in this region. If Clooney's goal was to inform Americans about their own culpability in the social, political, religious and economic lives of Middle Eastern people, I think he makes a good attempt at it. While it may not change minds (I'm reminded of a very dear Michigan pastor who in 2003 decried the idea that the US was possibly after Iraq's oil) it gives enough reasons to speculate on possible theories.
I'm no collegiate placard-holder one finds posting on websites like Democratic Underground. Some of my evangelical pals have surprisingly turned out to be among these shrill voices brimming with emotion and less with sense. But I can appreciate that the sinfulness of human beings, perhaps different in form in different cultures, are not different in essence. Greed here, lust there, pride elsewhere. They all originate from the same sources.
But the plot got me thinking. If sins are so endemic, why do we fixate on certain sins? For the above-mentioned bleeding heart liberal it may be a matter of US profit-motive. For a dyed in the wool neo-con the greatest sin may be someone's lack of love for America, as evidenced by her sympathetic opinions for the Iraqis. How often have I cringed on hearing the phrase, 'if they don't like (something the US did) they should live in Afhanistan'. How many times have I sighed on hearing the phrase, 'It's all because of Bush'. When these phrases come from Christians- and they have, from both sides of the opinion- they demonstrate a lack of love, both for the US and for the others.
Well- back to my question. The movie does portray the US as pulling the strings on every abominable deed. A cursory look at any ugly incident in the Middle East reveals that there are no good guys there- at all. Why then, the fixation? Perhaps because the US has more resources, influence, dominance? Perhaps because everyone (as the neo-cons say) hates us? Perhaps because we all think we are Americans and we have the right to criticize the US? Who knows?
So if Syriana made me think, it gave me no closure. In my theological blogposts I've mentioned that I like to stir the pot often even if I have no answers. But usually there are some overarching answers- like the truth of the Gospel, the reality of God's love and beneficence, despite seeming paradoxes. But besides a self-loathing attitude, I'm not able to penetrate the thinking behind this movie. Is it patriotica, in an introspective way? Maybe- but I'm missing something. There really is no gentleness in the narrative, no moral, no worldview that is apparent.
What I've always looked for is a worldview to inform our stories. As Muggeridge once said, it is far easier to feel righteous standing out on a street holding a protest sign than actually living a moral, righteous life. You see- I see a story without a worldview, and I see no human interest.
Syriana is a brilliant film. It effectively traces connections between the Middle Eastern "Great Game(s)" and the strong motives behind US meddling in this region. If Clooney's goal was to inform Americans about their own culpability in the social, political, religious and economic lives of Middle Eastern people, I think he makes a good attempt at it. While it may not change minds (I'm reminded of a very dear Michigan pastor who in 2003 decried the idea that the US was possibly after Iraq's oil) it gives enough reasons to speculate on possible theories.
I'm no collegiate placard-holder one finds posting on websites like Democratic Underground. Some of my evangelical pals have surprisingly turned out to be among these shrill voices brimming with emotion and less with sense. But I can appreciate that the sinfulness of human beings, perhaps different in form in different cultures, are not different in essence. Greed here, lust there, pride elsewhere. They all originate from the same sources.
But the plot got me thinking. If sins are so endemic, why do we fixate on certain sins? For the above-mentioned bleeding heart liberal it may be a matter of US profit-motive. For a dyed in the wool neo-con the greatest sin may be someone's lack of love for America, as evidenced by her sympathetic opinions for the Iraqis. How often have I cringed on hearing the phrase, 'if they don't like (something the US did) they should live in Afhanistan'. How many times have I sighed on hearing the phrase, 'It's all because of Bush'. When these phrases come from Christians- and they have, from both sides of the opinion- they demonstrate a lack of love, both for the US and for the others.
Well- back to my question. The movie does portray the US as pulling the strings on every abominable deed. A cursory look at any ugly incident in the Middle East reveals that there are no good guys there- at all. Why then, the fixation? Perhaps because the US has more resources, influence, dominance? Perhaps because everyone (as the neo-cons say) hates us? Perhaps because we all think we are Americans and we have the right to criticize the US? Who knows?
So if Syriana made me think, it gave me no closure. In my theological blogposts I've mentioned that I like to stir the pot often even if I have no answers. But usually there are some overarching answers- like the truth of the Gospel, the reality of God's love and beneficence, despite seeming paradoxes. But besides a self-loathing attitude, I'm not able to penetrate the thinking behind this movie. Is it patriotica, in an introspective way? Maybe- but I'm missing something. There really is no gentleness in the narrative, no moral, no worldview that is apparent.
What I've always looked for is a worldview to inform our stories. As Muggeridge once said, it is far easier to feel righteous standing out on a street holding a protest sign than actually living a moral, righteous life. You see- I see a story without a worldview, and I see no human interest.
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Praise God From Whom All Blessings Flow
I generally share news of hopes that never came to fruition, of coping with such disappointments and the nature of our faith. Four weeks ago we were in Atlanta at the wake of one of our relatives. He had died of testicular cancer that could have been cured 2 years ago but it was misdiagnosed and now he had died after suffering a heart condition in response to the powerful chemo he went through.
Other issues- difficulties at my work and for my friends at work, our own health issues, several acquaintances suffering from cancer, the death of the relative I talked about earlier, their family's subsequent emotional breakdowns. Last week when another relative was diagnosed with brain tumour (glioma) after suffering a siezure, Alma came to my home office and wept, saying 'I don't know how much more bad news I can take.' We talked on this topic that night and came to the inescapable conclusion we had come to before many times: were it not for the hope of resurrection, life is simply not worth living.
Our relative's surgery was scheduled to be on June 2nd (Tuesday) so we flew to Ft Lauderdale and stayed at their house to ease the process. As we went there the doctors let us know that it was a low grade glioma, so we had some hope.
In the morning before the surgery I read through John 11, the raising of Lazarus from the dead. I shared this with the patiet's wife as well. I could put myself in the shoes of each of the doubters who questioned Jesus throughout this episode. Almost every word out of the mouths of the disciples, Martha and the Jewish frrieds of Mary and Martha are doubting comments. Let me illustrate how these doubters said almost the same things I did.
Verse 3: So the sisters sent word to Jesus, "Lord, the one you love is sick."
Vijai: Now what, Lord? You know he is sick.
Verse 4 When he heard this, Jesus said, "This sickness will not end in death. No, it is for God's glory so that God's Son may be glorified through it."
Vijai (in prayer): I know you do all things to conform to your will. I believe your will cannot be changed. We simply fit into it with our prayers. I know in some way you will demonstrate your glory whether the surgery is a success or not.
Verses 8 and 9 (the disciples): "But Rabbi," they said, "a short while ago the Jews tried to stone you, and yet you are going back there?" Jesus answered, "Are there not twelve hours of daylight? A man who walks by day will not stumble, for he sees by this world's light. It is when he walks by night that he stumbles, for he has no light."
Vijai (reading this): Does this mean that when we are guided by God nothing bad will happen to us? Does it mean that if we guided by God, our being stoned or not stones depends entirely on his will; and his will is always good?
Verses 12-14 12His disciples replied, "Lord, if he sleeps, he will get better." Jesus had been speaking of his death, but his disciples thought he meant natural sleep. So then he told them plainly, "Lazarus is dead, and for your sake I am glad I was not there, so that you may believe. But let us go to him."
Alma to Vijai: Perhaps this is meant for the whole of the family (the majority of whom are unbelievers). I think a healing will result and it will shake up the family.
Verse 16: Then Thomas (called Didymus) said to the rest of the disciples, "Let us also go, that we may die with him."
Vijai (thinking): This is the verse I most identify with. It is easier to think of ourselves as dying with Jesus than living with Him. I'm so thankful that the Lord gave us these remarks and others from Thomas, who, also being Kerala's patron saint, has endeared himself to us. Sketpcism, doubt, questions with no answers- these sum up my response to Jesus. I believe that the Bible if 100 percent true- I just find it hard to apply it to my life situations. I also find it tough to interpret it correctly, especially when it comes to hoping for a healing from God.
Verse 21: "Lord," Martha said to Jesus, "if you had been here, my brother would not have died. But I know that even now God will give you whatever you ask."
Vijai: Though I do not say the same thing (I know Jesus knows everything and is present everywhere, but I act like he doesn't and he isn't), my attitude is similar.
Verses 23 through 27: Jesus said to her, "Your brother will rise again." Martha answered, "I know he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day." Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; and whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?" "Yes, Lord," she told him, "I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God, who was to come into the world."
Vijai: I do not know how to interpret Martha's thoughts. I tend to answer important questions in life on Jesus' behalf quite often, basing them on my understanding of theology. For instance, I prayed for Tommy for a healing but I always make room for a different result. This isn't like Jesus' prayer at the Garden, "Nevertheless, not my will, but your be done." I do not sweat drops of blood in asking for a miracle against incredible odds. Mine is the voice of doubt.
Verses 32 and 33: When Mary reached the place where Jesus was and saw him, she fell at his feet and said, "Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died." When Jesus saw her weeping, and the Jews who had come along with her also weeping, he was deeply moved in spirit and troubled.
Vijai: Jesus cares about our suffering. I'm convinced he doesn't let us go under the scalpel unless there is a special purpose for it. Under normal circumstances I think it is not the right response on our part to keep expecting the worst to happen and thereby hedge our bets.
Verse 35: Jesus wept.
Vijai: If this verse and others like it had been part of our church's Scripture memorization program I could have done it on my head. I'm not sure why Jesus wept when he knew that Lazarus was going to be raised. Did he weep because he saw that Lazarus' loved ones were grieving? Did he weep because of the mniracle about to happen. We often weep after a successful surgery. Were these tears of joy? John doesn't give us a clue.
Verses 36-37: Then the Jews said, "See how he loved him!" But some of them said, "Could not he who opened the eyes of the blind man have kept this man from dying?"
Vijai: I rationalize it like this. I know God is all-powerful. I know God cares for us, even for our temporal well-being. I know Jesus never refused anyone who asked Him for healing, even ones who were not thankful to him, or people who did things he asked them not to do (like the man by the pool who told the priests about his healing). But I have seen prayers for healing whih were not answered in the way the I wanted them to be. This means that I have no control over such things. It also means that there are circumstances in which our temporal suffering is not negotiable. After all, we all die physical deaths. Even Lazarus died a second time. So, the question is, while Jesus can heal, will Jesus heal this time? And if Jesus does not heal, then what is my response? The above verses reveal my attitude though I would not paraphrase it that way.
Verses 38- 40: Jesus, once more deeply moved, came to the tomb. It was a cave with a stone laid across the entrance. 39"Take away the stone," he said. "But, Lord," said Martha, the sister of the dead man, "by this time there is a bad odor, for he has been there four days." Then Jesus said, "Did I not tell you that if you believed, you would see the glory of God?"
Vijai: In the hospital prior to the surgery a Latin American believer came into the hospital to speak to our relative. He talked about his own healing and prayed with all of us. He said to our relative that if he believed he will be healed. All my doubts came racing into my mind and I wondered how anyone could say such things with certainty. But I was also struck by the fact that while I struggled to witness credibly to my relative, this man was so direct. "Do you believe in the Lord Jesus as your persoal Lord and Saviour?" "Do you believe what the Bible says?"
Alma and I talked afterwards and wondered if we should seek help in our church as to how to witness. It was pretty easy in the days I first became a believer. Wide eyed and excited, I would simply describe the process of my conversion and talk about the 'before' and 'after' scenarios, and leave the rest to God. Today I'm stymied, especially during such situations in which I struggle with how to meet the family's desire for temporal comfort with eternal hope. I also wonder if I may be simply perceived as being opportunistic. Before the surgery I prayed for healing with nor preconditions. Perhaps subconsciously I may have made room for a different result by I didn't dare to voice it in prayer!
Verse 43-44: When he had said this, Jesus called in a loud voice, "Lazarus, come out!" The dead man came out, his hands and feet wrapped with strips of linen, and a cloth around his face.
Vijai: After the surgery we went into the recovery room to talk to our relative. The surgery was successful. The doctors said they could get most, if not all, of the tumour out. There was no blood loss. It was the best prognosis and the best result. When we went in to talk to him, I noticed he was bound with strips of cloth, and this verse came to mind, "The dead man came out, his hands and feet wrapped with strips of linen, and a cloth around his face."
Verses 45-46: Therefore many of the Jews who had come to visit Mary, and had seen what Jesus did, put their faith in him. But some of them went to the Pharisees and told them what Jesus had done.
Vijai: If miracles demonstrate God's glory to some, they also solidify the resolve of those who want to disbelieve. It is amazing enough that after a miracle of such proportions some of the witnesses plotted Jesus' death. How does this apply to us?
One of the many believers who had come to see our relative let his wife know that God will heal him and when He does, be sure to let people know about it. I'm not known for sharing news of such blessings as I am for sharing bad news and trying to make sense of it. Well, this is my attempt to understand this wonderful blessing. As you can see I have a hard time understanding blessings as well.
Do I still think that life is not worth living if not for the hope of resurrection? In a larger sense, yes. But in the here and now I just find it worth living if only to share God's love with people- in all kids of ways, sharing the Gospel, comforting them in their difficulties and other ways. As 'tweeners' who live between the 2 earthly advents of Jesus, our purpose in the world is to win the world for Him.
Other issues- difficulties at my work and for my friends at work, our own health issues, several acquaintances suffering from cancer, the death of the relative I talked about earlier, their family's subsequent emotional breakdowns. Last week when another relative was diagnosed with brain tumour (glioma) after suffering a siezure, Alma came to my home office and wept, saying 'I don't know how much more bad news I can take.' We talked on this topic that night and came to the inescapable conclusion we had come to before many times: were it not for the hope of resurrection, life is simply not worth living.
Our relative's surgery was scheduled to be on June 2nd (Tuesday) so we flew to Ft Lauderdale and stayed at their house to ease the process. As we went there the doctors let us know that it was a low grade glioma, so we had some hope.
In the morning before the surgery I read through John 11, the raising of Lazarus from the dead. I shared this with the patiet's wife as well. I could put myself in the shoes of each of the doubters who questioned Jesus throughout this episode. Almost every word out of the mouths of the disciples, Martha and the Jewish frrieds of Mary and Martha are doubting comments. Let me illustrate how these doubters said almost the same things I did.
Verse 3: So the sisters sent word to Jesus, "Lord, the one you love is sick."
Vijai: Now what, Lord? You know he is sick.
Verse 4 When he heard this, Jesus said, "This sickness will not end in death. No, it is for God's glory so that God's Son may be glorified through it."
Vijai (in prayer): I know you do all things to conform to your will. I believe your will cannot be changed. We simply fit into it with our prayers. I know in some way you will demonstrate your glory whether the surgery is a success or not.
Verses 8 and 9 (the disciples): "But Rabbi," they said, "a short while ago the Jews tried to stone you, and yet you are going back there?" Jesus answered, "Are there not twelve hours of daylight? A man who walks by day will not stumble, for he sees by this world's light. It is when he walks by night that he stumbles, for he has no light."
Vijai (reading this): Does this mean that when we are guided by God nothing bad will happen to us? Does it mean that if we guided by God, our being stoned or not stones depends entirely on his will; and his will is always good?
Verses 12-14 12His disciples replied, "Lord, if he sleeps, he will get better." Jesus had been speaking of his death, but his disciples thought he meant natural sleep. So then he told them plainly, "Lazarus is dead, and for your sake I am glad I was not there, so that you may believe. But let us go to him."
Alma to Vijai: Perhaps this is meant for the whole of the family (the majority of whom are unbelievers). I think a healing will result and it will shake up the family.
Verse 16: Then Thomas (called Didymus) said to the rest of the disciples, "Let us also go, that we may die with him."
Vijai (thinking): This is the verse I most identify with. It is easier to think of ourselves as dying with Jesus than living with Him. I'm so thankful that the Lord gave us these remarks and others from Thomas, who, also being Kerala's patron saint, has endeared himself to us. Sketpcism, doubt, questions with no answers- these sum up my response to Jesus. I believe that the Bible if 100 percent true- I just find it hard to apply it to my life situations. I also find it tough to interpret it correctly, especially when it comes to hoping for a healing from God.
Verse 21: "Lord," Martha said to Jesus, "if you had been here, my brother would not have died. But I know that even now God will give you whatever you ask."
Vijai: Though I do not say the same thing (I know Jesus knows everything and is present everywhere, but I act like he doesn't and he isn't), my attitude is similar.
Verses 23 through 27: Jesus said to her, "Your brother will rise again." Martha answered, "I know he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day." Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; and whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?" "Yes, Lord," she told him, "I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God, who was to come into the world."
Vijai: I do not know how to interpret Martha's thoughts. I tend to answer important questions in life on Jesus' behalf quite often, basing them on my understanding of theology. For instance, I prayed for Tommy for a healing but I always make room for a different result. This isn't like Jesus' prayer at the Garden, "Nevertheless, not my will, but your be done." I do not sweat drops of blood in asking for a miracle against incredible odds. Mine is the voice of doubt.
Verses 32 and 33: When Mary reached the place where Jesus was and saw him, she fell at his feet and said, "Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died." When Jesus saw her weeping, and the Jews who had come along with her also weeping, he was deeply moved in spirit and troubled.
Vijai: Jesus cares about our suffering. I'm convinced he doesn't let us go under the scalpel unless there is a special purpose for it. Under normal circumstances I think it is not the right response on our part to keep expecting the worst to happen and thereby hedge our bets.
Verse 35: Jesus wept.
Vijai: If this verse and others like it had been part of our church's Scripture memorization program I could have done it on my head. I'm not sure why Jesus wept when he knew that Lazarus was going to be raised. Did he weep because he saw that Lazarus' loved ones were grieving? Did he weep because of the mniracle about to happen. We often weep after a successful surgery. Were these tears of joy? John doesn't give us a clue.
Verses 36-37: Then the Jews said, "See how he loved him!" But some of them said, "Could not he who opened the eyes of the blind man have kept this man from dying?"
Vijai: I rationalize it like this. I know God is all-powerful. I know God cares for us, even for our temporal well-being. I know Jesus never refused anyone who asked Him for healing, even ones who were not thankful to him, or people who did things he asked them not to do (like the man by the pool who told the priests about his healing). But I have seen prayers for healing whih were not answered in the way the I wanted them to be. This means that I have no control over such things. It also means that there are circumstances in which our temporal suffering is not negotiable. After all, we all die physical deaths. Even Lazarus died a second time. So, the question is, while Jesus can heal, will Jesus heal this time? And if Jesus does not heal, then what is my response? The above verses reveal my attitude though I would not paraphrase it that way.
Verses 38- 40: Jesus, once more deeply moved, came to the tomb. It was a cave with a stone laid across the entrance. 39"Take away the stone," he said. "But, Lord," said Martha, the sister of the dead man, "by this time there is a bad odor, for he has been there four days." Then Jesus said, "Did I not tell you that if you believed, you would see the glory of God?"
Vijai: In the hospital prior to the surgery a Latin American believer came into the hospital to speak to our relative. He talked about his own healing and prayed with all of us. He said to our relative that if he believed he will be healed. All my doubts came racing into my mind and I wondered how anyone could say such things with certainty. But I was also struck by the fact that while I struggled to witness credibly to my relative, this man was so direct. "Do you believe in the Lord Jesus as your persoal Lord and Saviour?" "Do you believe what the Bible says?"
Alma and I talked afterwards and wondered if we should seek help in our church as to how to witness. It was pretty easy in the days I first became a believer. Wide eyed and excited, I would simply describe the process of my conversion and talk about the 'before' and 'after' scenarios, and leave the rest to God. Today I'm stymied, especially during such situations in which I struggle with how to meet the family's desire for temporal comfort with eternal hope. I also wonder if I may be simply perceived as being opportunistic. Before the surgery I prayed for healing with nor preconditions. Perhaps subconsciously I may have made room for a different result by I didn't dare to voice it in prayer!
Verse 43-44: When he had said this, Jesus called in a loud voice, "Lazarus, come out!" The dead man came out, his hands and feet wrapped with strips of linen, and a cloth around his face.
Vijai: After the surgery we went into the recovery room to talk to our relative. The surgery was successful. The doctors said they could get most, if not all, of the tumour out. There was no blood loss. It was the best prognosis and the best result. When we went in to talk to him, I noticed he was bound with strips of cloth, and this verse came to mind, "The dead man came out, his hands and feet wrapped with strips of linen, and a cloth around his face."
Verses 45-46: Therefore many of the Jews who had come to visit Mary, and had seen what Jesus did, put their faith in him. But some of them went to the Pharisees and told them what Jesus had done.
Vijai: If miracles demonstrate God's glory to some, they also solidify the resolve of those who want to disbelieve. It is amazing enough that after a miracle of such proportions some of the witnesses plotted Jesus' death. How does this apply to us?
One of the many believers who had come to see our relative let his wife know that God will heal him and when He does, be sure to let people know about it. I'm not known for sharing news of such blessings as I am for sharing bad news and trying to make sense of it. Well, this is my attempt to understand this wonderful blessing. As you can see I have a hard time understanding blessings as well.
Do I still think that life is not worth living if not for the hope of resurrection? In a larger sense, yes. But in the here and now I just find it worth living if only to share God's love with people- in all kids of ways, sharing the Gospel, comforting them in their difficulties and other ways. As 'tweeners' who live between the 2 earthly advents of Jesus, our purpose in the world is to win the world for Him.
Friday, January 16, 2009
Dubious Witness in a Skeptical World
Unlike most of my friends in America, my evangelical, Bible-believing, pro-life, pro-family Christian friends in India are not fully politically conservative in the American sense. And I applaud their ability to be objective in their thinking, separating the politically expedient promises from real ones, considering their pro-life views to be inclusive of all people, including the aged, the imprisoned, and of course the unborn. But something that struck me as I talked to some of them was that they seemed, as many are apt to do, to exclude from true faith those Christian leaders who failed their ideal.
I've often felt that disowning fallen brethren is a sure way to set oneself up for future embarrassment. Ths is true for all kinds of fallen brethren: Christian leaders who fall prey to sexual immorality, politicians who fight unpopular wars, the ones who were involved in the Crusades in the Middle ages, everyone. Why do I feel this way?
I see the errors into which I have fallen myself and see that by the clear light of God's leading and word that they were milestones to understanding God. The moment we try to appear on the right side of popular opinion we can be sure that we are going off the track. A friend recently signed up into an online community on Facebook that celebrated the departure of President Bush in a gloating manner. While I can understand their desire to celebrate a victory they were hoping for, I'm unable to understand why a Christian would endorse such a childish and disrespectful initiative. Another friend told me, "these people (Mr. Bush and other Christians in his administration) cannot be Christian."
As I think about this, many reasons come to mind as to why we do this: embarrassment in identifying with an unpopular leader or a less-educated Christian, sin in the lives of these fallen idols, ill-informed opinions, a desire to exclude those who misunderstand Scripture and may other such factors.
Given that we could easily have been in their shoes due to ignorance, sin, poor judgment, incompetence or misunderstanding, I strongly believe that we have a responsibility to own up and hold in perspective many things:
1. An unconditional rejection of sin within and outside of ourselves.
2. An unconditional acceptance that Christians could go and have gone wrong even when they believe they are acting in accordance with God's will.
If we accept the above two conditions, we will need to answer a larger question that an unbelieving friend asked me recently. If religion can be so easily misconstrued then it can be easily manipulated. Could not this mean that:
1. The way we do things in any religion today may be not authentic at all?
2. If religion can be so easily misinterpreted is it a worthwhile course to understand religion at all?
Perhaps we are intimidated by such questions. But clearly these are not a believer's questions, nor an honest skeptic's questions at all. I have some common ground with a skeptic in a way- I embrace the Christian worldview because I'm fully convinced of it and because Jesus found me 13 years ago in my sin and demonstrated his forgiveness to me. It is not because I'm credulous that I'm a Christian.
The above two questions are naysayers' questions. These are people who are not actually looking for reason at all. They simply want to deny Christianity a place in their lives or often, others' lives. We should not be troubled by these questions.
Many say that faith is not found by reason. While I disagree that faith is unreasonable there is an element of truth to the statement that faith cannot be found by reason. Simply because logical, scientific, historical, archaeological and other evidences can be found for christianity (as indeed they have been to a reasonable extend), a person cannot embrace christianity.
A skeptic needs to have other questions answered which may not have anything to do with reason at all. for instance, "why did my child die" (as in Arun Shourie's case), or "why does God allow suffering" (a question which may have more personal implications for the questioner than she is willing to confide), or "why did I get fired from my job", or "why did my parents abandon me", or "how can God's word call me sinful when I seem to have no control over my feelings or actions."
Indeed I'm convinced that all of us ask these questions; and fight it as we may, the reason why we are not convinced of any faith-worldview is precisely because these questions are not answered in our minds. Perhaps the answer to these questions may convict us of sin which we are unwilling to admit.
The difference between an honest skeptic and a naysayer is profound. A healthy skepticism as to political leanings (Left or Right) of fellow-Christians and a propensity to stir the pot and encounter mysteries in Christian thinking have stood me in good stead. These mysteries only edify me and leave me to admire God for the immense wisdom that is His and past my finding out. To be humbled in this way is to experience a thrill that God is in control and delights in my asking these questions which I may never find the answers for, either side of eternity. But the naysaying habit destroys the soul and prevents us from coming to God.
These days a naysayer's favourite refuge lies in ad hominem attacks on Christian leaders, politicians and others who have been suddenly found to have contradicted their profesed beliefs. I think an honest skeptic would be careful enough to look beyond these. For this reason alone, I do not think we need to fear questions from naysayers when we adopt an honest approach to serious mistakes Christians have made.
And I think an honest Christian should be careful not to disown these people when they fall. After all naysayers are not just found among the unbelievers. A Christian naysayer can be the most disturbing of all, in that his faith and actions can come across as being insincere. An honest skeptic would call this bluff in a hurry.
I've often felt that disowning fallen brethren is a sure way to set oneself up for future embarrassment. Ths is true for all kinds of fallen brethren: Christian leaders who fall prey to sexual immorality, politicians who fight unpopular wars, the ones who were involved in the Crusades in the Middle ages, everyone. Why do I feel this way?
I see the errors into which I have fallen myself and see that by the clear light of God's leading and word that they were milestones to understanding God. The moment we try to appear on the right side of popular opinion we can be sure that we are going off the track. A friend recently signed up into an online community on Facebook that celebrated the departure of President Bush in a gloating manner. While I can understand their desire to celebrate a victory they were hoping for, I'm unable to understand why a Christian would endorse such a childish and disrespectful initiative. Another friend told me, "these people (Mr. Bush and other Christians in his administration) cannot be Christian."
As I think about this, many reasons come to mind as to why we do this: embarrassment in identifying with an unpopular leader or a less-educated Christian, sin in the lives of these fallen idols, ill-informed opinions, a desire to exclude those who misunderstand Scripture and may other such factors.
Given that we could easily have been in their shoes due to ignorance, sin, poor judgment, incompetence or misunderstanding, I strongly believe that we have a responsibility to own up and hold in perspective many things:
1. An unconditional rejection of sin within and outside of ourselves.
2. An unconditional acceptance that Christians could go and have gone wrong even when they believe they are acting in accordance with God's will.
If we accept the above two conditions, we will need to answer a larger question that an unbelieving friend asked me recently. If religion can be so easily misconstrued then it can be easily manipulated. Could not this mean that:
1. The way we do things in any religion today may be not authentic at all?
2. If religion can be so easily misinterpreted is it a worthwhile course to understand religion at all?
Perhaps we are intimidated by such questions. But clearly these are not a believer's questions, nor an honest skeptic's questions at all. I have some common ground with a skeptic in a way- I embrace the Christian worldview because I'm fully convinced of it and because Jesus found me 13 years ago in my sin and demonstrated his forgiveness to me. It is not because I'm credulous that I'm a Christian.
The above two questions are naysayers' questions. These are people who are not actually looking for reason at all. They simply want to deny Christianity a place in their lives or often, others' lives. We should not be troubled by these questions.
Many say that faith is not found by reason. While I disagree that faith is unreasonable there is an element of truth to the statement that faith cannot be found by reason. Simply because logical, scientific, historical, archaeological and other evidences can be found for christianity (as indeed they have been to a reasonable extend), a person cannot embrace christianity.
A skeptic needs to have other questions answered which may not have anything to do with reason at all. for instance, "why did my child die" (as in Arun Shourie's case), or "why does God allow suffering" (a question which may have more personal implications for the questioner than she is willing to confide), or "why did I get fired from my job", or "why did my parents abandon me", or "how can God's word call me sinful when I seem to have no control over my feelings or actions."
Indeed I'm convinced that all of us ask these questions; and fight it as we may, the reason why we are not convinced of any faith-worldview is precisely because these questions are not answered in our minds. Perhaps the answer to these questions may convict us of sin which we are unwilling to admit.
The difference between an honest skeptic and a naysayer is profound. A healthy skepticism as to political leanings (Left or Right) of fellow-Christians and a propensity to stir the pot and encounter mysteries in Christian thinking have stood me in good stead. These mysteries only edify me and leave me to admire God for the immense wisdom that is His and past my finding out. To be humbled in this way is to experience a thrill that God is in control and delights in my asking these questions which I may never find the answers for, either side of eternity. But the naysaying habit destroys the soul and prevents us from coming to God.
These days a naysayer's favourite refuge lies in ad hominem attacks on Christian leaders, politicians and others who have been suddenly found to have contradicted their profesed beliefs. I think an honest skeptic would be careful enough to look beyond these. For this reason alone, I do not think we need to fear questions from naysayers when we adopt an honest approach to serious mistakes Christians have made.
And I think an honest Christian should be careful not to disown these people when they fall. After all naysayers are not just found among the unbelievers. A Christian naysayer can be the most disturbing of all, in that his faith and actions can come across as being insincere. An honest skeptic would call this bluff in a hurry.
Friday, October 31, 2008
Truth without Grace
Peggy Noonan's column this Friday (today) on the Presidential elections has an air of defeat, no matter that she has been trying her best to present both sides of the argument for some time now, battling her Republican allegience to give Obama credit where he deserves it.
In this column she makes this great point (among several others):
When the press was hitting hard on the pregnancy of Sarah Palin's 17-year-old daughter, he did not respond with a politically shrewd "I have no comment," or "We shouldn't judge." Instead he said, "My mother had me when she was 18," which shamed the press and others into silence. He showed grace when he didn't have to.
As a Christian Obama's only blip in his campaign came at the time when he had some observations to make about the Bible. I think he was mauled by Conservative commentators, in particular Dr. James Dobson (which may be understandable because Obama singled him out and hinted that he was as far Right as Al Sharpton is to the Left). But Dr. Dobson's comments seemed to me lacking in Christian charity. I have listened to his radio program and certainly it is not all about politics. I think he cares about the family and the values that we cherish. But his blindsidedness has affacted him to a point where his comments in response to Obama's do not reflect Grace.
Besides this I have to say I have not seen a political candidate anywhere in the world take on detractors with the finesse that Obama has shown. The great orators among statesmen- Nehru, Churchill, et al showed at least some hints of arrogance in public. To date except for the blip above I have not actually seen Obama ruffle anyone's feathers. That is not the important thing, though- the most significant point is that he still fascinates with his ideas a nation that is used to listening to short, pithy soundbites meant to excite, anger or polarize.
Dr. Dobson's response to Obama in June brings me to another thought. I have seen Christians debating from both sides. Dobson, Robertson, Limbaugh, O'Reilly and others have crossed the line from civility to ungracious behaviour many times in these debates. Other Christians, rooting for Obama, too have followed the world's way of ranting and raving- with a caveat that we will laugh all about it in eternity anyway. While this is true, it reminds me of what a comedian once said about the American Deep South: You can say anything you want about anyone, as long as you add as a suffix, "Bless his/her soul." It is funny because it is actually true to a large extend.
The fact is Christians, whichever side they have taken, have been largely ungracious. You see it in conversations, in blogs, in emails. It seems to me that we may not be evaluated by the unbelieving neighbour so much for our allegience as our attitude. After all if we simply take sides in a debate, we will be considered simply as part of a voting bloc: Conservative vs. Liberal, Pro-life vs. Pro-choice, Capitalist vs. Socialist, Right vs. Left.
When and how do we get counted as Christians? I do not share the opinion that Christians have no role in politics as such. I think our convictions- the Gospel, the saving grace of Jesus Christ- compel us to act in the social and political sphere. All too often, due to the limited nature of the fallen world, we are forced to take sides, often compromising one value for another. We all become single-issue or two-issue voters in most elections, whichevere side we are on. We assign priorities. We sometimes get the label "nutcases" by those opposing our views. This would not matter so much if it had been just the unbelievers on the other side. But the fact is we squabble about it the exact same way as the secular world does. Though the words used are not usually as severe, I have seen words and phrases used by Christians in this debate which should not be on their minds to use at all. Schaeffer's columns (one of which I had commended on this blog) with respect to Dr. Dobson has been peppered with truths couched in language that is hurtful and sometimes (though rarely) inappropriate for a Christian.
From this and my other writings on this blog, I think it is by now clear that I feel that Christian behaviour that does not reflect Grace (as well as Truth) falls woefully short of the Lord's command. Being Pro-Life is indeed being Pro-Truth. Being Pro-Poor is surely being Pro-Truth. But being crude in our conversations about it is being Anti-Grace. Jesus, as the prologue to John's Gospel says, was full of Grace and Truth.
I have a confession to make. My faith has been shaken a few times in the course of these political debates- not severely, but shaken nevertheless. This has nothing to do with intellectual charges against the Christian worldview. Intellectually I'm convinced strongly of the truth, grace and beauty of the Gospel. I have listened to endless debates and statements from men who want to rip the Gospel apart- men and organizations like Richard Dawkins, Infidels.org, Swami Prabhupada and so on. Besides the fact that I find their positions intellectually untenable, I derive comfort from Christianity that my research into other faiths and worldviews cannot match. Christianity is Truth, and in addition it is also Good News! The comments that Obama had made in reference to slavery, capital punishment for an erring son, et al in the Jewish law are not mysterious elements to me. Slavery in the Old and New Testament were realities that when read in conext were not supported by God or His Law, but acknowledged as extant among the Hebrews as among the other Semitic peoples. In fact the Hebrews were given clear instructions to be humane towards their slaves- and from history we know that this was a benign form of domestic servitude, unlike the economic slavery that the Roman empire and pre-Lincoln America practised. Paul's writings also tell us how he regarded slaves to be free men in Christ and masters to be slaves to Christ. He considered himself to be a slave to Christ. Jesus calls himself as one who serves- quite literally, a slave. The concept of the slave that the Bible refer to is distorted by Obama's implicit suggestions about it, but we cannot hold it against him as a Presidential candidate simply because of his limited theology. After all, if our standards were so stringent, in some sense the theology of most Christian Presidents have been limited enough to warrant our displeasure. Obama's comments about stoning the errant son are derived from actual words in the Old Testament. It is important to note the distinction that Jesus made about Old Testament Law and what God actually desires. When questioned about divorcing a wife, he said, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning." When questioned about stoning a woman caught in the act of adultery, he said, "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone." Was he contradicting the Law? As He says, "Matt 5:18 "For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled." Jesus thus claims to be the end goal of the Law, that He came to fulfill it. The fulfillment of the Law is not found in its penal code, endless requirements, Sabbath regulations, ceremonial cleansing and so on, but its fulfillment in His Person- including his vicarious death and resurrection and the Christ-life that ensues after a conversion event in a believer's life- the gradual folding away of the flesh and the dominion of the Spirit, in which His righteousness becomes manifest.
None of these pronouncements trouble my theology, though it may trouble me that the Bible is being misinterpreted in the public sphere.
But as the Psalmist says in another context in Psalm 73, "But as for me, my feet had almost stumbled;. My steps had nearly slipped." As I watched debates among Christians, my heart sank as disappointment turned to shame and anger that these brothers would be so influenced by the world that they could address each other in the same way. I wondered almost hiding even from myself, if what the detractors keep harping about Christianity could be actually true. Individually their arguments are easily disproven. But the clamour of voices chip away at one's conviction, especially in moments like this, when one is frustrated with those who one has looked up to as leaders and exemplars. The violence over Christ in history, recent arguments about Christ's alleged non-existence, the scandal of the Da Vinci code and other gnostic writings aimed at draining divinity from Christ, the watering down of the Bible, following the cafeteria mentality of picking and choosing what one likes in the Bible while discarding others... All of these are no match for the theologically sound answers that Christians have come up with over the past 2000 years. But when one sees a community meant to reflect Christ reflecting something (or someone) else, one's faith is troubled.
In John chapter 6, when the people who witnessed Jesus' miraculous multiplication of bread and fish to feed them all were offended at his saying that he was the bread of life and that they must feed on his flesh to be saved, Jesus asked his presumably scandalized disciples if they wished to leave as well. Peter's reply finds an echoe in many troubled hearts: "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life; and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God" (John 6:68-69).
The secular humanistic worldview offers a cold world with morals justified only by one's Quixotic imagination and ideals with no purpose to live or die for- a barren wasteland that is embraced with zeal by those fuelled more by indifference, misconception or animosity towards religion than those with conviction. Hinduism, with its view of the world as immaterial and illusory as Maya, a view of life as terrifyingly cyclical, only an abstract understanding of salvation that is called Moksha- and that by a lucky throw of dice in which chance, noble birth, Karma, Yoga (in its different spiritual forms), meditation and so on come together. Buddhism with its escape into the inner world so distant and disconnected with the world we live in and its myriad cries for help, with a non-exitent Deity that changes into a Deification of the Almighty Self, Islam with its rules and regulations, strictures and no hope, assurance or certain way (except by physical or spiritual Jihad) to attain salvation.
Forests of tongues, as Chesterton said:
Forests of tongues, like autumn leaves unshed,
Being not unlovable but strange and light;
Old riddles and new creeds, not in despite
But softly, as men smile about the dead.
Then I realize that I have nowhere to go. Nature abhors a vacuum, and so do our spirits. In Christ there is fullness of joy.
Last week in church a ministry resident talked to us about the letter of James, chapter 3, versus 13-18. He made the point derived from this that spiritual ends cannot be achieved without spiritual means. So better programs, management, more resources and so on cannot save a dying church. The church is after all a group of people into whom God has breathed the Spirit of Life, and is thus inspired by that Spirit. Our engagements in the world are not to be governed by earthly means. When we use earthly frameworks such as governments, employers, law and other organizations, let us be mindful that we cannot push our agendas through manipulation, partisanship or out-arguing each other- if indeed our first agenda is to preach Christ and Him crucified.
As Peggy Noonan notes insightfully in her article, Eras end, and begin. "God is in charge of history." Perhaps the era of some Christian leaders have ended as well, but the era of Christ never ends.
Friday, October 12, 2007
The Age of Cacophony
PG Wodehouse once wrote in his 1952 novella 'Pigs have Wings', "silence had come like a poultice to heal the blows of sound." Each time I read that sentence I think of how true and incisive that is in my own life. I rarely watch television. Unlike the old days I don't like heated political debates any more either on TV or in person. It's not because I dislike being challenged in my views. There's actually nothing I like better than thinking through differing opinions and arriving at the truth, or often the 'why' of the 'what' that I do. It's sheer pleasure to put it in a few crisp words and realize the world of truth behind them. No, the reason I dislike debates, TV news and contentious discussions is because ours is not an age of reason, but one of soundbytes masquerading as reason.
Let's put this to test. What would you like to prove? Let's assume you would like to prove Jesus did not exist. There are a number of books out there that reject outright the historicity of Jesus, all of them considered less than scholarly by true experts in the field. See Wikipedia for details. But these books are not meant for people seeking the truth- they are meant for those who already want to believe Jesus did not exist. Some who oppose Christianity, some others who have a political agenda in trumping Jesus' historicity, others who are caught in behaviours considered sinful by Christians... the list could include many persuasions, but these all find fodder for their cannon in such books. Among these are people who are only casually looking and are prepared to be dismayed or shocked or set right- but they aren't hungry enough for the truth. These are the ones to whom soundbytes appeal more and more- and I think these are what most of us are, or are about to become. Instant news, instant knowledge, instant decisions on matters that have taken lifetimes for wise people to dwell on.
Let's assume that you want to prove that the crusades were misunderstood as acts of hatred, that in reality they were labours of love. Or, that the crusaders did not include at least some real Christians. Or, you want to justify the terror the British government and the East India Company unleashed on Indians by citing some scientific progress that came along in the wake of the industrial revolution that they passed along to India. Or, more far-fetched, you want to prove that the Nazi holocaust may have had a positive effect because it eventually produced the nation of Israel.. Or, assume you are someone who interprets all evil acts to have been 'worth it' because great people have been produced by them- Gandhi, Bonhoeffer, Solzhenitsyn. The more I see things on TV or in print, the more I'm convinced that all of it is possible. Anything you want to prove can be written or said- and people will believe it if it makes enough noise.
Thus an atheist calling his community of God-denyers 'the brights' appeals to people to trust them because they are intelligent and anyone who disagrees with them isn't. A homosexual rights activist equates his/her struggle to the civil rights movement and gains sympathy for the cause. A Hindu fundamentalist in India decries any silence on the part of a Muslim when a Hindu is murdered, and in the same breath justifies the murder of a Muslim by a Hindu as something that happens when minorities are appeased. An American nationalist is certain that anyone who does not fight the war on terror alongside the US is against the US, while their own sympathies are far away from terrorist attacks in faroff countries, especially those of the Third World.
I like Google News because I get to read one point of view and deliberately look for something that is opposed to that view. It's possible to get the truth somewhere in between- if you look hard enough. I like Wikipedia because, though it may be biased, its discussion pages contain real debate on arriving at the truth. I truly hate TV because it commands us what to think. Take the recent Ann Couter controversy on Jews vs. Christians.
Coulter claimed that Christians were perfected Jews, and that its not a hateful comment because Christians think of themselves that way and do not force Jews to become as they are. Her host on CNBC, Donnie Deutsch, was outraged and offended as he is Jewish. He felt this was anti-Semitic. Coulter clarified that she meant Christians consider the New Testament and the Old Testament to be true, while the Jews do not believe the New Testament. Deutsche, instead of responding to that, said, "You said - your exact words were, "Jews need to be perfected." Those are the words out of your mouth."
Now there is a public outcry for Coulter to be banned from TV. I really do not have a stake in this one way or another. But consider this for a moment. We all know that Ann Coulter has courted controversy all through her current career. Deutsche behaves like a typical talk show host- all soundbytes and no reason. Regardsless of how thoughtless Ann may have sounded, Christians consider Christianity as the logical extension of Judaism; they also believe that simply stopping at Judaism is not enough. To say that Christians are perfect is going overboard and certainly arrogant-sounding; but in our age of political correctness saying anything at all about one faith comparing favourably against another is unacceptable and persumably leads to violence.
We must remember that in the minds of TV's spin doctors all of this selective- for instance it doesn't (they presume) lead to violence if an atheist mocks theism, or the Hindu American Foundation mocks Christianity but fights textbook material in the US on Hinduism because they perceive the material to be offensive, or a Muslim in Saudi Arabia discrimnates against Hindus or Jews. It all depends on the context. The loudest soundbyte wins. There is no reasoning through the existential questions we face; we just want to see a good fight and set the winner up as we see fit.
What happens in this age of cacophony when truth is hard to find and the truth-speaker has to make himself heard above the din of voices? It's tougher, of course, especially for a Christian. You see attacks on the message and the messengers of the Gospel everywhere- some of it caused due to fallen pastors, others due to specious claims made by the contentious. Now more than ever it's time to let God be God, and realize that the mission to proclaim the Truth is first and foremost God's mission. If it can't be heard, it will always touch people the way it's always touched them- not through soundbytes but by experience. Perhaps this is what Simone Weil meant when she said truth needs to be experienced and not heard; only then does it become truth to the hearer. Remember Chesterton's words:
Let's put this to test. What would you like to prove? Let's assume you would like to prove Jesus did not exist. There are a number of books out there that reject outright the historicity of Jesus, all of them considered less than scholarly by true experts in the field. See Wikipedia for details. But these books are not meant for people seeking the truth- they are meant for those who already want to believe Jesus did not exist. Some who oppose Christianity, some others who have a political agenda in trumping Jesus' historicity, others who are caught in behaviours considered sinful by Christians... the list could include many persuasions, but these all find fodder for their cannon in such books. Among these are people who are only casually looking and are prepared to be dismayed or shocked or set right- but they aren't hungry enough for the truth. These are the ones to whom soundbytes appeal more and more- and I think these are what most of us are, or are about to become. Instant news, instant knowledge, instant decisions on matters that have taken lifetimes for wise people to dwell on.
Let's assume that you want to prove that the crusades were misunderstood as acts of hatred, that in reality they were labours of love. Or, that the crusaders did not include at least some real Christians. Or, you want to justify the terror the British government and the East India Company unleashed on Indians by citing some scientific progress that came along in the wake of the industrial revolution that they passed along to India. Or, more far-fetched, you want to prove that the Nazi holocaust may have had a positive effect because it eventually produced the nation of Israel.. Or, assume you are someone who interprets all evil acts to have been 'worth it' because great people have been produced by them- Gandhi, Bonhoeffer, Solzhenitsyn. The more I see things on TV or in print, the more I'm convinced that all of it is possible. Anything you want to prove can be written or said- and people will believe it if it makes enough noise.
Thus an atheist calling his community of God-denyers 'the brights' appeals to people to trust them because they are intelligent and anyone who disagrees with them isn't. A homosexual rights activist equates his/her struggle to the civil rights movement and gains sympathy for the cause. A Hindu fundamentalist in India decries any silence on the part of a Muslim when a Hindu is murdered, and in the same breath justifies the murder of a Muslim by a Hindu as something that happens when minorities are appeased. An American nationalist is certain that anyone who does not fight the war on terror alongside the US is against the US, while their own sympathies are far away from terrorist attacks in faroff countries, especially those of the Third World.
I like Google News because I get to read one point of view and deliberately look for something that is opposed to that view. It's possible to get the truth somewhere in between- if you look hard enough. I like Wikipedia because, though it may be biased, its discussion pages contain real debate on arriving at the truth. I truly hate TV because it commands us what to think. Take the recent Ann Couter controversy on Jews vs. Christians.
Coulter claimed that Christians were perfected Jews, and that its not a hateful comment because Christians think of themselves that way and do not force Jews to become as they are. Her host on CNBC, Donnie Deutsch, was outraged and offended as he is Jewish. He felt this was anti-Semitic. Coulter clarified that she meant Christians consider the New Testament and the Old Testament to be true, while the Jews do not believe the New Testament. Deutsche, instead of responding to that, said, "You said - your exact words were, "Jews need to be perfected." Those are the words out of your mouth."
Now there is a public outcry for Coulter to be banned from TV. I really do not have a stake in this one way or another. But consider this for a moment. We all know that Ann Coulter has courted controversy all through her current career. Deutsche behaves like a typical talk show host- all soundbytes and no reason. Regardsless of how thoughtless Ann may have sounded, Christians consider Christianity as the logical extension of Judaism; they also believe that simply stopping at Judaism is not enough. To say that Christians are perfect is going overboard and certainly arrogant-sounding; but in our age of political correctness saying anything at all about one faith comparing favourably against another is unacceptable and persumably leads to violence.
We must remember that in the minds of TV's spin doctors all of this selective- for instance it doesn't (they presume) lead to violence if an atheist mocks theism, or the Hindu American Foundation mocks Christianity but fights textbook material in the US on Hinduism because they perceive the material to be offensive, or a Muslim in Saudi Arabia discrimnates against Hindus or Jews. It all depends on the context. The loudest soundbyte wins. There is no reasoning through the existential questions we face; we just want to see a good fight and set the winner up as we see fit.
What happens in this age of cacophony when truth is hard to find and the truth-speaker has to make himself heard above the din of voices? It's tougher, of course, especially for a Christian. You see attacks on the message and the messengers of the Gospel everywhere- some of it caused due to fallen pastors, others due to specious claims made by the contentious. Now more than ever it's time to let God be God, and realize that the mission to proclaim the Truth is first and foremost God's mission. If it can't be heard, it will always touch people the way it's always touched them- not through soundbytes but by experience. Perhaps this is what Simone Weil meant when she said truth needs to be experienced and not heard; only then does it become truth to the hearer. Remember Chesterton's words:
The Convert
After one moment when I bowed my head
And the whole world turned over and came upright,
And I came out where the old road shone white,
I walked the ways and heard what all men said,
Forests of tongues, like autumn leaves unshed,
Being not unlovable but strange and light;
And the whole world turned over and came upright,
And I came out where the old road shone white,
I walked the ways and heard what all men said,
Forests of tongues, like autumn leaves unshed,
Being not unlovable but strange and light;
Old riddles and new creeds, not in despite
But softly, as men smile about the dead.
But softly, as men smile about the dead.
The sages have a hundred maps to give
That trace their crawling cosmos like a tree,
They rattle reason out through many a sieve
That stores the sand and lets the gold go free:
And all these things are less than dust to me
Because my name is Lazarus and I live.
That trace their crawling cosmos like a tree,
They rattle reason out through many a sieve
That stores the sand and lets the gold go free:
And all these things are less than dust to me
Because my name is Lazarus and I live.
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Answer to a Skeptic
There are numerous questions one would answer to skeptics when one holds to a conviction in a Faith. Some of them are asked again and again. Of all questions posed to Christians, none as I have found are so common and so sensitively juxtaposed as the question of a long history of evil by religious people. I have answered this to inquiring friends by way of logic, history, reasoning from the Bible and pointing to human nature as a root cause rather than religion. Still the questions keep coming and the answerer is weak from answering.
The older I get the more confident I am about God's faithfulness and the more cynical I am about human nature- the grand claims of nobility that lies within the human heart. In a way I'm a skeptic too. I'm a skeptic as to the motivations of the questioner after religion. Ten years of Christian life and detecting insincerity in questioners as well as in my own heart has compelled me to question our very intentions. Often we desire that God's will be not done- though as Christians we would not admit it to even ourselves. When answering unbelievers, I remind myself that regardless of the intention my answer must be consistent, logical, sensitive, compelling and interested. Secondly I must remind myself that it is the Holy Spirit who accomplishes a contrite spirit and a believing heart, not my words.
Here is journalist Dilip D'Souza's article on this subject, titled 'Why I am disillusioned with religion'. As I read this I thought to myself, 'Aren't the answers clear enough? Hasn't the world heard the apologetic of years past, in fact of over 2000 years why this happens?' Then I think to myself the many articles that this journalist has written, many of them noted for their sensitivity to the subject and sincerity of the cause. In fact even this article acknowledges the good that Christianity has displayed; and that the evil spawned has been from a minority of people.
To satisfy my urge to answer D'Souza, I decided to summarize my answer in 5 parts:
1. The dynamics of exclusive beliefs
2. Religion over irreligion
3. The dangers of being simply lukewarm
4. The nature of the human heart and alternate theories such as Maya.
5. The 4 questions each worldview needs to answer
1. The dynamics of exclusive beliefs
D'Souza's argument is not that Christianity's doctrine leads one to violence. Perhaps a case could made by more insincere inquirers that the Jewish people built their nation through war, but the sincere inquirer would note that Christianity forbids murder and Christ's example forbids conversion by force. D'Souza's point is that while there is good that Christianity has done there is also evil that Christians have committed. As he writes, "What else were those Crusades but a resort to the sword in the name of Christianity?" and "Richard (King Richard I) was a cruel man who ordered Jews killed in London, presided over a massacre in Cyprus while journeying to fight his Third Crusade, and had thousands of Muslim prisoners killed at Acre (then Akko) during the war. Such was his Christian kingliness."
If we Christians claim that he was not of the faithful, we have no way of proving we are right. After all God judges our hearts, and though our faith may be manifest in our works, we are not without sin. The Bible acknowledges the believer's fight against the world, the flesh and the devil. All we can say is that he wasn't acting from Christian character. But who among us is flawless? We need a better explanation for this contradiction if we believe that Christianity is indeed the Truth that joins us in communion with God.
Implicit in Dilip's question may be the question of exclusivity, why Christians exclude non-adherents in God's plan for salvation. This is in my view a make or break question. Unlike many other philosophies, Christianity is not an evolving religion. It may bear new interpretations for our day but it cannot be treated as a faith that can be added to. For instance when Christ says 'I'm the way, the truth and the life. No man comes to the Fther except by Me,' we cannot expand the criteria to accomodate our difficulties with exclusivity. This would make it something other than Christianity. The skeptic questions whether holding on to an exclusive faith is a good thing for us in the here and now. If it engenders prejudice and hatred toward others, then how could it possibly by a religion of Love? The Christian may answer that there are exclusivists who have loved sinners and hated their sin; that Christ's character and example point to the correct thinking in Christianity. But the skeptic remains unconvinced even when the Christian points to credible examples of Christian virtue among exclusivists. For insincere skeptic the good examples don't matter- they will find fault with any of these. For the sincere ones the scandals stand out more than the noble deeds. For them the crusades are the biggest stumbling block. Here we hit a roadblock. A sincere (I believe) skeptic like Dilip asks us why there should be evil at all, despite the prevalence of good among Christians. The presence of evil stands out glaringly. We need to move on to the next section.
Let's take a step back and assess what evil each major world religion has done, and then what irreligion has done. By irreligion I mean people who advocate or instituted atheism as state policy.
Christianity, Judaism and Islam are exclusivist religions, all Semitic. The evil perpetrated by their adherents have been well-documented through history. Dilip's article is pretty descriptive of some of them. The Dharmic religions- Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism- are not without their history of violence either: the wars of the Guptas, the Mauryas, et al look good in glorified national history texts, but in reality this must have been a horrendous shedding of blood: Asoka's disillusionment over the world surfaced after a violent battle, and the Hindu epics describe wars fought by warriors who were often favoured by the gods not for their moral incorruptibility but other factors such as their valour in battle and their devotional tapas toward these gods. We don't have much written history prior to the establishment of the Islamic sultanates in India (themselves often violent and predatory), but heroes such as Sivaji were no saints either, regardless of what popular opinion in India might have to say about it.
Animistic traditions, primitive religions, American Indian spirit-worship, nature worship- they are all replete with records of violent acts. So is religion something irredeemably violent, after all?
This brings us to the point to which atheists, agnostics, freethinkers, et al object vehemently- that the moral failure that irreligion brings is not simply a coincidence but a systemic flaw inherent in trading religion for humanism. The statistics are overwhelming. Josef Stalin, no friend to religion, has been held accountable for 20 million deaths by conservative estimates. Wikipedia states that the actual number could be anywhere between 3 and 60 million. Millions died of privation, the Ukranian famine, execution, torture and deportation to Siberia. In addition, much of his ire was directed against Jewish people, making this a 'religious' crime to some, but in reality part of a purge against all religion.
Mao Zedong's roster of such killings range between 2 and 5 million, with another 1.5 million sent to 'reform through labour' camps. Pol Pot, considered one of the worst mass murderers in modern history was supported by Mao in his extermination of one-fifth of his country's population (1.7 million). These were all influenced by Marxist theory and were activist atheists. Hitler's religion has been the subject of considerable debate. But consider these facts: he was raised Roman Catholic but as a schoolboy left the religion and never again attended Mass. He was critical of Chrstianity as he knew it but wanted to reinvent it instead of throwing it away- particularly as a way to reinforce anti-Semitic ideology. However he also made statements like "National Socialism and religion cannot exist together" and "The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity" and "Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things."
This article gives his pro and anti-Christian statements. The impression one get is that one cannot read his mind from his public statements. For him these statements were only the means to his end: that of establishing the supremacy of the Third Reich over the world. So what did he really believe? I can' say for sure, but one thing as the article states, is clear: Hitler was a materialist and rationalist. He worshipped himself. In other words he believed that Man was the measure of God, specifically one man- himself. I believe that this ideology is at the heart of atheism. This article says: "Frederick Nietzsche, the atheist philosopher who coined the phrase "God is dead" had a big effect on the worldview of Adolf Hitler, who took some of Nietzsche's more strident writings as his philosophical road map when he launched World War II (Hitler even gave copies of Nietzsche's books to Mussolini). "
Together these tyrants have been responsible for more deaths than other killings in the last 20 centuries put together. Could one could that irreligion is by nature violent? I would say that most atheists by and large are not violent people. But my point is that the difference in these individuals is in scale, not in kind. Irreligion does engender indifference to certain values: in history this has manifested most commonly as erotomania (the love of pleasure) or megalomani (the love of power), both eschewed or held in balance by most religions.
My grandma was always suspicious of committed believers. Her dad was one, and though his character has been considered Christ-like and beautiful, the time he spent on witnessing the Good News took time away from his very profitable business, landing his family in very dire straits. This and other such experiences lead well-meaning people to consider having a strong opinion as being dangerous. Theirs only to live and die normally. If that is all we think matters, then we are really not very different from the irreligious. A 'normal' indifferent way of living is hardly normal in practice- the petty squabbles, jealousies, narrow-mindedness and prejudice are all part of this seemingly idyllic existence. As I said the difference in immorality is in scale, not in kind. Besides, I don't believe anyone could truly be indifferent to truth. Each one has a worldview- in fact Indifference itself is one. Also I think the pursuite of Truth about ourselves and our Creator are the desires of each heart, though this may be a latent realization, often in times of trouble.
Dilip concludes his essay this way: "And given all the bloodshed that lack of understanding has caused, all through history, I wonder if that impossibility is intrinsic to religion itself.Maybe to humanity itself." Christianity holds that the human heart is a heart of darkness, of evil. The inherent, original sin manifests itself quickly- it's present in a child stealing a cookies as it is in as despot who commits genocide against his own people. Other religions consider this to be a contradiction. The Advaita stream of Hindu thought posits that evil and good are illusory, in fact the human condition with its contradictions of nobility and evil are all Maya, an illusion. The only way out of this is Moksha, a moment when one realizes that his inner self the Atman is part of the universal reality, the Brahman; and nothing else matters. This thought in several interpretations is at the heart of all Dharmic faiths. The 'cloud of unknowing' that these faiths talk about is a concept that fails to strike a chord in me, because I acutely feel the problem in myself- that snare of sin which compels me to do what I hate to do.
These are 4 essential questions each worldview needs to answer:
1. Who is God? (or what is God's nature?)
2. What is the human condition?
3. The problem of sin and transcendence
4. What is our destiny?
These are the pivotal questions on which hang concepts of salvation, forgiveness, love, wisdom, purpose, eternity and so on. These are the points at which each worldview differs and we are compelled to choose. If faith were simply about do's and dont's then I'm not so sure we need a religion. After do's and don'ts (whether they are actually based on righteousness or not) exist in every society- atheistic, animistic, Christian, Hindu, Islamic, Shinto and so on. To focus on moralizing alone would be to just set up basic rules for social conduct, not very different from etiquette. Besides, the legislative systems in each country further quantifies offenses based on their perceived gravity. Such a concept of religion leaves us empty- we don't need blind rules. We need, most of all, a relationship on which the pillars of life and living rest. But more about that later. Let's go over each of these 4 questions.
Who is God? My mom used to tell me that God was an impersonal form of energy that pervaded the universe. This was surprising. I don't know if she would say the same thing now, but she's always been a Catholic and apparently found nothing wrong in reconciling faith in the person of Jesus with this idea of God as an 'oblong blur' in the universe. The fact is, Christianity ascribes personhood to God. God is a person with a personal nature and character. Other religions posit his having an impersonal character, some posit him just being the reality of all there is. Which brings us to the other point- God is not the universe or the matter, nor is he present in the matter. He created the matter as something other than Himself. He pervades space and time and is not bound by it. The picture is that of a Creator holding all creation in the palm of his hand. His presence is around it, but creation itself is separate from the hand.
What is the human condition? All religions need to explain this. Atheism simply states that the human condition is amoral, evolved and unnecessary. Not that all atheists believe that humans themselves are to be eradicated as a race, but that their significance to the earth is none- they could well be non-existent and the universe will go on. Many pantheistic religions believe that the human condition is a cloud of unknowing. They posit that the human being is in a trap of illusion, some posit that Man is caught up in desire and this desire itself is false; therefore to achieve a break from this he needs to let go of desire or break from the cloud of unknowing. The state to which he then arrives is the place of liberation wherein he 'realizes' union with reality. Here we must pause to ask the question: why do religions need to explain the human condition at all? Isn't religion more about God than man? Surely more theology and less anthropology is what we need, isn't it? Thre reason is this: whatever we do to deny it, we feel the tug of contraditction within ourselves. We do things which we don't feel comfortable doing; somehow we feel we shouldn't be doing them; we see beauty and order and love in the natural world around us, but we see it marred by cruelty and danger and loss and death. We cherish our relationships, but we see all relationships end in either dispute or death. We love to see new born babies and cherish their innocence, but they grow older and often less lovable, and they eventually die. We are unable to reconcile with the passage of time. We are continually surprised by how a person has grown older or taller or stronger or wiser, although this is to be only expected. We long for a better tomorrow, a better place, a better situation... a remedy. That begs the question, a remedy to what? Christianity calls it: Sin. All that follows after it- death, dispute, evil, trouble, as well as our longing for a better place and time point to this reality that is undeniable. Christianity believes that human beings are born into sin and we have a propensity to sin. Our nature longs to sin. After our first parents sinned against God's loving provision for them and breaking His plan for their lives, the human race fell headlong into the terror of rebellion against God. The propensity of our race changed from being responsive and submissive to God to being separated from God and naturally rebellious. We chafe at His authority, fear and distrust His sovereignity, doubt His love. We have also been deceived by earthly philosophy that bears a resemblance of His truth but is not quite it. That is the human condition. It's also the closest explanation I can identify with. I feel the tug of sin more than the cloud of unknowing. I sense temptation within my bones. It's right here within me and it's undeniably, irrevocably true. That brings us to point 3.
The problem with sin is that it is a vicious circle, a quagmire, a storm that cannot be tamed by discipline, devotion, love or by knowledge of law. Our best efforts may have kept us from being depraved enough as our fellow man, but deep inside we know it's just not enough. We have this urge to satisfy something or someone with our deeds and our lives. We live for certain people often- our kids, our spouses, or parents and other loved ones. We find significance in fighting causes for our nations, animals, the oppressed... But it just doesn't go away. Every worldview accounts for this or copes with it- Buddhism struggles to break free of desire through meditation, Hinduism meditates on union with the Ultimate reality and through the doctrine of karma, brings in consequences to our. Atheism denies sin, but loudly proclaims that we must build our own heaven on earth, as typified in Nietzsche's Superman. All of this fails because it fails to define the problem correctly. Desire in itself is not sin. Sinful desire is a corruption of godly desire. Meditation becomes escapism when it ignores the reality of our own sin. The doctrine of karma which promises rebirth after rebirth as karmic penalties is a pretty good picture of the remorseless victimization of sin, but gives us no solution to the dilemma. Atheism by denying sin cuts itself off from logic and reason, and fails to explain satisfactorily this fundamental contradiction we live with. What does Christianity say? The Judeo-Christian worldview defines sin as unrighteousness, meaning not being right with God. God is the moral law-giver and all good flows from him. Our understanding of good also follows from our understanding of his very nature. This worldview also says that we cannot be right with God by our merits or penance. Nothing we do forms a sufficient penalty. The only acceptable payment for sin is Christ's sacrifice- the price paid by the blamess for the sake of the sinful. When we cannot transcend into His kingdom he transcends into our world and reaches out to us to accept his invitation. When we could not ascend he descended and carries us with Him on his ascent.
Our destiny- as Christians we know that we will enter heaven- the very presence of God. The Christian life also clarifies for us our earthly purpose. In some mysterious way, as CS Lewis also notes, our earthly good works add up for us heavenly rewards so that when we look back on our life we know that all this was so from the beginning of the ages. The plan unfurls and we see better. A few months ago my friend remarked to me about an unbelieving friend of his who held that the only motive Christians could have for wanting to convert him was the prospect of 'riches' in heaven. What these riches are, we do not know. Would these e power, material well-being or other pleasure? The Bible speaks in figurative terms because Heaven is unlike nything else we have seen. I think every believer knows that whatever else heaven may be, it is the place where the Lord will be adored and worshipped and we will known Him as He knows us. Perhaps the reward is just that- the knowledge of God; and the more we conform to His image here on earth the more we grow closer to Him, the better glimpse we have of His heart. His desire is to have more of his people know Him, and this desire is what compels the believer to take His message out. When a new believer is born again, the Bible says that the agels rejoice, and so do we. It's more akin to the joy new parents experience than anything else. Such joy is not because now they have power over someone elseor even completely because of the joy a baby brings to themselves, but they are joyful for the birth itself, for the baby's own sake, for the fact that this baby has so much to learn and know and accomplish. Thus they rejoice at her wonder at seeing a sunset ro a firefly and love to impart what little they know. They long to be better parents than their own parents were and to make sure that the baby does better in life than they ever did. Their purpose for her is her character and wisdom and knowledge. Such gift-love is unknown in any other relationship. While in most cases the believer's joy in another believer does not compare to this, the unselfishness and freedom to rejoice in another's excellence of character has close parallels. The unbeliever cannot grasp it just as she cannot grasp the presence of God in the most mundane things. As poet Elizabeth Barrett Browning put it:
The older I get the more confident I am about God's faithfulness and the more cynical I am about human nature- the grand claims of nobility that lies within the human heart. In a way I'm a skeptic too. I'm a skeptic as to the motivations of the questioner after religion. Ten years of Christian life and detecting insincerity in questioners as well as in my own heart has compelled me to question our very intentions. Often we desire that God's will be not done- though as Christians we would not admit it to even ourselves. When answering unbelievers, I remind myself that regardless of the intention my answer must be consistent, logical, sensitive, compelling and interested. Secondly I must remind myself that it is the Holy Spirit who accomplishes a contrite spirit and a believing heart, not my words.
Here is journalist Dilip D'Souza's article on this subject, titled 'Why I am disillusioned with religion'. As I read this I thought to myself, 'Aren't the answers clear enough? Hasn't the world heard the apologetic of years past, in fact of over 2000 years why this happens?' Then I think to myself the many articles that this journalist has written, many of them noted for their sensitivity to the subject and sincerity of the cause. In fact even this article acknowledges the good that Christianity has displayed; and that the evil spawned has been from a minority of people.
To satisfy my urge to answer D'Souza, I decided to summarize my answer in 5 parts:
1. The dynamics of exclusive beliefs
2. Religion over irreligion
3. The dangers of being simply lukewarm
4. The nature of the human heart and alternate theories such as Maya.
5. The 4 questions each worldview needs to answer
1. The dynamics of exclusive beliefs
D'Souza's argument is not that Christianity's doctrine leads one to violence. Perhaps a case could made by more insincere inquirers that the Jewish people built their nation through war, but the sincere inquirer would note that Christianity forbids murder and Christ's example forbids conversion by force. D'Souza's point is that while there is good that Christianity has done there is also evil that Christians have committed. As he writes, "What else were those Crusades but a resort to the sword in the name of Christianity?" and "Richard (King Richard I) was a cruel man who ordered Jews killed in London, presided over a massacre in Cyprus while journeying to fight his Third Crusade, and had thousands of Muslim prisoners killed at Acre (then Akko) during the war. Such was his Christian kingliness."
If we Christians claim that he was not of the faithful, we have no way of proving we are right. After all God judges our hearts, and though our faith may be manifest in our works, we are not without sin. The Bible acknowledges the believer's fight against the world, the flesh and the devil. All we can say is that he wasn't acting from Christian character. But who among us is flawless? We need a better explanation for this contradiction if we believe that Christianity is indeed the Truth that joins us in communion with God.
Implicit in Dilip's question may be the question of exclusivity, why Christians exclude non-adherents in God's plan for salvation. This is in my view a make or break question. Unlike many other philosophies, Christianity is not an evolving religion. It may bear new interpretations for our day but it cannot be treated as a faith that can be added to. For instance when Christ says 'I'm the way, the truth and the life. No man comes to the Fther except by Me,' we cannot expand the criteria to accomodate our difficulties with exclusivity. This would make it something other than Christianity. The skeptic questions whether holding on to an exclusive faith is a good thing for us in the here and now. If it engenders prejudice and hatred toward others, then how could it possibly by a religion of Love? The Christian may answer that there are exclusivists who have loved sinners and hated their sin; that Christ's character and example point to the correct thinking in Christianity. But the skeptic remains unconvinced even when the Christian points to credible examples of Christian virtue among exclusivists. For insincere skeptic the good examples don't matter- they will find fault with any of these. For the sincere ones the scandals stand out more than the noble deeds. For them the crusades are the biggest stumbling block. Here we hit a roadblock. A sincere (I believe) skeptic like Dilip asks us why there should be evil at all, despite the prevalence of good among Christians. The presence of evil stands out glaringly. We need to move on to the next section.
2. Religion over irreligion
Let's take a step back and assess what evil each major world religion has done, and then what irreligion has done. By irreligion I mean people who advocate or instituted atheism as state policy.
Christianity, Judaism and Islam are exclusivist religions, all Semitic. The evil perpetrated by their adherents have been well-documented through history. Dilip's article is pretty descriptive of some of them. The Dharmic religions- Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism- are not without their history of violence either: the wars of the Guptas, the Mauryas, et al look good in glorified national history texts, but in reality this must have been a horrendous shedding of blood: Asoka's disillusionment over the world surfaced after a violent battle, and the Hindu epics describe wars fought by warriors who were often favoured by the gods not for their moral incorruptibility but other factors such as their valour in battle and their devotional tapas toward these gods. We don't have much written history prior to the establishment of the Islamic sultanates in India (themselves often violent and predatory), but heroes such as Sivaji were no saints either, regardless of what popular opinion in India might have to say about it.
Animistic traditions, primitive religions, American Indian spirit-worship, nature worship- they are all replete with records of violent acts. So is religion something irredeemably violent, after all?
This brings us to the point to which atheists, agnostics, freethinkers, et al object vehemently- that the moral failure that irreligion brings is not simply a coincidence but a systemic flaw inherent in trading religion for humanism. The statistics are overwhelming. Josef Stalin, no friend to religion, has been held accountable for 20 million deaths by conservative estimates. Wikipedia states that the actual number could be anywhere between 3 and 60 million. Millions died of privation, the Ukranian famine, execution, torture and deportation to Siberia. In addition, much of his ire was directed against Jewish people, making this a 'religious' crime to some, but in reality part of a purge against all religion.
Mao Zedong's roster of such killings range between 2 and 5 million, with another 1.5 million sent to 'reform through labour' camps. Pol Pot, considered one of the worst mass murderers in modern history was supported by Mao in his extermination of one-fifth of his country's population (1.7 million). These were all influenced by Marxist theory and were activist atheists. Hitler's religion has been the subject of considerable debate. But consider these facts: he was raised Roman Catholic but as a schoolboy left the religion and never again attended Mass. He was critical of Chrstianity as he knew it but wanted to reinvent it instead of throwing it away- particularly as a way to reinforce anti-Semitic ideology. However he also made statements like "National Socialism and religion cannot exist together" and "The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity" and "Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things."
This article gives his pro and anti-Christian statements. The impression one get is that one cannot read his mind from his public statements. For him these statements were only the means to his end: that of establishing the supremacy of the Third Reich over the world. So what did he really believe? I can' say for sure, but one thing as the article states, is clear: Hitler was a materialist and rationalist. He worshipped himself. In other words he believed that Man was the measure of God, specifically one man- himself. I believe that this ideology is at the heart of atheism. This article says: "Frederick Nietzsche, the atheist philosopher who coined the phrase "God is dead" had a big effect on the worldview of Adolf Hitler, who took some of Nietzsche's more strident writings as his philosophical road map when he launched World War II (Hitler even gave copies of Nietzsche's books to Mussolini). "
Together these tyrants have been responsible for more deaths than other killings in the last 20 centuries put together. Could one could that irreligion is by nature violent? I would say that most atheists by and large are not violent people. But my point is that the difference in these individuals is in scale, not in kind. Irreligion does engender indifference to certain values: in history this has manifested most commonly as erotomania (the love of pleasure) or megalomani (the love of power), both eschewed or held in balance by most religions.
3. The danger of being lukewarm
My grandma was always suspicious of committed believers. Her dad was one, and though his character has been considered Christ-like and beautiful, the time he spent on witnessing the Good News took time away from his very profitable business, landing his family in very dire straits. This and other such experiences lead well-meaning people to consider having a strong opinion as being dangerous. Theirs only to live and die normally. If that is all we think matters, then we are really not very different from the irreligious. A 'normal' indifferent way of living is hardly normal in practice- the petty squabbles, jealousies, narrow-mindedness and prejudice are all part of this seemingly idyllic existence. As I said the difference in immorality is in scale, not in kind. Besides, I don't believe anyone could truly be indifferent to truth. Each one has a worldview- in fact Indifference itself is one. Also I think the pursuite of Truth about ourselves and our Creator are the desires of each heart, though this may be a latent realization, often in times of trouble.
4. The Nature of the human heart and alternative theories such as Maya
Dilip concludes his essay this way: "And given all the bloodshed that lack of understanding has caused, all through history, I wonder if that impossibility is intrinsic to religion itself.Maybe to humanity itself." Christianity holds that the human heart is a heart of darkness, of evil. The inherent, original sin manifests itself quickly- it's present in a child stealing a cookies as it is in as despot who commits genocide against his own people. Other religions consider this to be a contradiction. The Advaita stream of Hindu thought posits that evil and good are illusory, in fact the human condition with its contradictions of nobility and evil are all Maya, an illusion. The only way out of this is Moksha, a moment when one realizes that his inner self the Atman is part of the universal reality, the Brahman; and nothing else matters. This thought in several interpretations is at the heart of all Dharmic faiths. The 'cloud of unknowing' that these faiths talk about is a concept that fails to strike a chord in me, because I acutely feel the problem in myself- that snare of sin which compels me to do what I hate to do.
5. Four questions a worldview needs to answer
These are 4 essential questions each worldview needs to answer:
1. Who is God? (or what is God's nature?)
2. What is the human condition?
3. The problem of sin and transcendence
4. What is our destiny?
These are the pivotal questions on which hang concepts of salvation, forgiveness, love, wisdom, purpose, eternity and so on. These are the points at which each worldview differs and we are compelled to choose. If faith were simply about do's and dont's then I'm not so sure we need a religion. After do's and don'ts (whether they are actually based on righteousness or not) exist in every society- atheistic, animistic, Christian, Hindu, Islamic, Shinto and so on. To focus on moralizing alone would be to just set up basic rules for social conduct, not very different from etiquette. Besides, the legislative systems in each country further quantifies offenses based on their perceived gravity. Such a concept of religion leaves us empty- we don't need blind rules. We need, most of all, a relationship on which the pillars of life and living rest. But more about that later. Let's go over each of these 4 questions.
Who is God? My mom used to tell me that God was an impersonal form of energy that pervaded the universe. This was surprising. I don't know if she would say the same thing now, but she's always been a Catholic and apparently found nothing wrong in reconciling faith in the person of Jesus with this idea of God as an 'oblong blur' in the universe. The fact is, Christianity ascribes personhood to God. God is a person with a personal nature and character. Other religions posit his having an impersonal character, some posit him just being the reality of all there is. Which brings us to the other point- God is not the universe or the matter, nor is he present in the matter. He created the matter as something other than Himself. He pervades space and time and is not bound by it. The picture is that of a Creator holding all creation in the palm of his hand. His presence is around it, but creation itself is separate from the hand.
What is the human condition? All religions need to explain this. Atheism simply states that the human condition is amoral, evolved and unnecessary. Not that all atheists believe that humans themselves are to be eradicated as a race, but that their significance to the earth is none- they could well be non-existent and the universe will go on. Many pantheistic religions believe that the human condition is a cloud of unknowing. They posit that the human being is in a trap of illusion, some posit that Man is caught up in desire and this desire itself is false; therefore to achieve a break from this he needs to let go of desire or break from the cloud of unknowing. The state to which he then arrives is the place of liberation wherein he 'realizes' union with reality. Here we must pause to ask the question: why do religions need to explain the human condition at all? Isn't religion more about God than man? Surely more theology and less anthropology is what we need, isn't it? Thre reason is this: whatever we do to deny it, we feel the tug of contraditction within ourselves. We do things which we don't feel comfortable doing; somehow we feel we shouldn't be doing them; we see beauty and order and love in the natural world around us, but we see it marred by cruelty and danger and loss and death. We cherish our relationships, but we see all relationships end in either dispute or death. We love to see new born babies and cherish their innocence, but they grow older and often less lovable, and they eventually die. We are unable to reconcile with the passage of time. We are continually surprised by how a person has grown older or taller or stronger or wiser, although this is to be only expected. We long for a better tomorrow, a better place, a better situation... a remedy. That begs the question, a remedy to what? Christianity calls it: Sin. All that follows after it- death, dispute, evil, trouble, as well as our longing for a better place and time point to this reality that is undeniable. Christianity believes that human beings are born into sin and we have a propensity to sin. Our nature longs to sin. After our first parents sinned against God's loving provision for them and breaking His plan for their lives, the human race fell headlong into the terror of rebellion against God. The propensity of our race changed from being responsive and submissive to God to being separated from God and naturally rebellious. We chafe at His authority, fear and distrust His sovereignity, doubt His love. We have also been deceived by earthly philosophy that bears a resemblance of His truth but is not quite it. That is the human condition. It's also the closest explanation I can identify with. I feel the tug of sin more than the cloud of unknowing. I sense temptation within my bones. It's right here within me and it's undeniably, irrevocably true. That brings us to point 3.
The problem with sin is that it is a vicious circle, a quagmire, a storm that cannot be tamed by discipline, devotion, love or by knowledge of law. Our best efforts may have kept us from being depraved enough as our fellow man, but deep inside we know it's just not enough. We have this urge to satisfy something or someone with our deeds and our lives. We live for certain people often- our kids, our spouses, or parents and other loved ones. We find significance in fighting causes for our nations, animals, the oppressed... But it just doesn't go away. Every worldview accounts for this or copes with it- Buddhism struggles to break free of desire through meditation, Hinduism meditates on union with the Ultimate reality and through the doctrine of karma, brings in consequences to our. Atheism denies sin, but loudly proclaims that we must build our own heaven on earth, as typified in Nietzsche's Superman. All of this fails because it fails to define the problem correctly. Desire in itself is not sin. Sinful desire is a corruption of godly desire. Meditation becomes escapism when it ignores the reality of our own sin. The doctrine of karma which promises rebirth after rebirth as karmic penalties is a pretty good picture of the remorseless victimization of sin, but gives us no solution to the dilemma. Atheism by denying sin cuts itself off from logic and reason, and fails to explain satisfactorily this fundamental contradiction we live with. What does Christianity say? The Judeo-Christian worldview defines sin as unrighteousness, meaning not being right with God. God is the moral law-giver and all good flows from him. Our understanding of good also follows from our understanding of his very nature. This worldview also says that we cannot be right with God by our merits or penance. Nothing we do forms a sufficient penalty. The only acceptable payment for sin is Christ's sacrifice- the price paid by the blamess for the sake of the sinful. When we cannot transcend into His kingdom he transcends into our world and reaches out to us to accept his invitation. When we could not ascend he descended and carries us with Him on his ascent.
Our destiny- as Christians we know that we will enter heaven- the very presence of God. The Christian life also clarifies for us our earthly purpose. In some mysterious way, as CS Lewis also notes, our earthly good works add up for us heavenly rewards so that when we look back on our life we know that all this was so from the beginning of the ages. The plan unfurls and we see better. A few months ago my friend remarked to me about an unbelieving friend of his who held that the only motive Christians could have for wanting to convert him was the prospect of 'riches' in heaven. What these riches are, we do not know. Would these e power, material well-being or other pleasure? The Bible speaks in figurative terms because Heaven is unlike nything else we have seen. I think every believer knows that whatever else heaven may be, it is the place where the Lord will be adored and worshipped and we will known Him as He knows us. Perhaps the reward is just that- the knowledge of God; and the more we conform to His image here on earth the more we grow closer to Him, the better glimpse we have of His heart. His desire is to have more of his people know Him, and this desire is what compels the believer to take His message out. When a new believer is born again, the Bible says that the agels rejoice, and so do we. It's more akin to the joy new parents experience than anything else. Such joy is not because now they have power over someone elseor even completely because of the joy a baby brings to themselves, but they are joyful for the birth itself, for the baby's own sake, for the fact that this baby has so much to learn and know and accomplish. Thus they rejoice at her wonder at seeing a sunset ro a firefly and love to impart what little they know. They long to be better parents than their own parents were and to make sure that the baby does better in life than they ever did. Their purpose for her is her character and wisdom and knowledge. Such gift-love is unknown in any other relationship. While in most cases the believer's joy in another believer does not compare to this, the unselfishness and freedom to rejoice in another's excellence of character has close parallels. The unbeliever cannot grasp it just as she cannot grasp the presence of God in the most mundane things. As poet Elizabeth Barrett Browning put it:
Earth's crammed with heaven,
And every common bush afire with God;
But only he who sees, takes off his shoes -
The rest sit round it and pluck blackberries
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
