So the thought occurred to me that one thing that most monotheistic faiths lack is a sense of the whatever comes before this life.
Of course that comes from the simple fact that as being travelers on this journey we call life,we are far more concerned with where we're going than where we're coming from. However, faiths such as Buddhism, Hinduism, and Mormonism all provide explanations of what has come before. Socrates provided an explanation, as well, as did Vergil in the Aeneid.
I have to wonder, then, why it is that Judaism, Christianity and Islam does not seem to put such emphasis on this facet of our faith.Truly, if we claim that the soul is eternal, per Aquinas, then we have to ask where we came from.
I suppose this is a good opportunity to examine the case for eternality. Does eternality mean an infinite amount of time on both sides? Is eternity more like a geometric line or a ray? Does something eternal have a beginning or has it always existed?
Suppose we say that something is eternal. Therefore, it necessarily has an infinite amount of existence. Thus, it will continue to exist forever and whether or not it was created seems irrelevent because it will always exist. However, if we say it will always exist, this is different than saying it does always exist. If something is created but will never cease to be created once it's created, then we can always measure how long something has been around. On the other hand, if something's existence goes back ad infinitum then we can never say how long it has been around.
What I'm trying to say is this: If everything that is has always existed in some sense, then our souls necessarily have always existed in some sense. But, if we believe that at some point everything was created, then our souls were created as well. Simply because Newtonian laws dictate that everything that is will always be in some form or another does not mean that it always has been.
Here's the conundrum: if our souls have not always been around, how can we be sure that they will always exist? And if they were not created at some point, how can we say that our God is all powerful?
Perhaps this is the reason why monotheism has never addressed this issue. Buddhists have no real concept of an all-powerful God, therefore omnipotence isn't an issue. Hindus have a group of gods that work in concert, but none of them are all powerful either. The gods of the Greeks and Romans were little more than super-powered human beings. And Mormons' concept of divinity rings like a combination of monotheism with the Olympian gods, by which method humans can become gods and God himself is limited in the heavens.
Thus, the idea of our souls existing since forever seems to be absent from those who believe in a god who has all power in the universe.
Friday, May 29, 2009
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Mysticism or Nihilism
I guess I could copy and paste verbatim what I wrote on facebook on this subject, but that was about a year ago and my thoughts have expanded a little bit.
We live in a very morally relativistic society. We always hear and in fact are usually guilty of saying things such as "Well, that's just your opinion." In our minds, what we think is right or wrong is not a system of absolutes. And, in fact, often times we view moral rectitude as a matter of politics.
However, it is a logical contradiction to state that everything is relative, morally speaking. For, if this is the case, then it is also necessarily the case that morals are null and void. There is no constraint in morals, and thus, the laws that govern society and are supposed to protect us are nothing more than a few people in Washington's ideas of what morality is. Thus, it would not be morally wrong to kill one's neighbor, cheat on one's wife, steal someone else's property or gain anything at the cost of someone else, as long as it was done in such a way that the person performing the action thought he was in the right.
This leads us to a Nietzschean point of view. Once again, whatever we do is part of our will to power. Nothing that we do is "evil" since "evil" is an invention of those who feel contempt for others. This leads to the ever popular idea of "eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die."
Here's where everything comes to a head. If our moral actions are relative, than there is no consequence for anything after we die. Thus it can also be deduced that there is no afterlife, and that this is all there is. This is where the Existentialists get their strength, but also where they fail to fully follow through with their logic.
If everything we do has no bearing on what happens to us after we die, than there is no significant difference, in terms of post-mortality, on how it affects us. Since the universe is billions of years old, and will continue to exist for billions of years, and we live for generally a maximum of a hundred years, it is obvious that our lives count for probably no more than a billionth of the time of the universe. And since right now there are six billion people alive on this planet, the impact we make in that one billionth of the universe's time is probably only a six billionth. Thus in the grand scheme of things, whatever we do, in all likeliness, amounts to no more than a pentillionth of any kind of significance on this planet. If there are other populated planets in the universe, than it is even less. Thus we see, that if we have no future to look forward to, it's not a matter of "living it up" because there is nothing to live up. If we can look past the noses on our faces, we will not only realize that our time here is extremely finite, but the space that we occupy, in terms of the universe, is infinitismal. And, if current scientific thought is correct, our universe, which was born of the big bang, will eventually collapse, and a new universe wil be born, continuing a cycle of infinite temporality.
Therefore, if there is nothing to look forward to, we, ourselves, are nothing. The question of morality becomes one that has no purpose, since we ourselves serve no purpose and occupy a space and time unimaginable to comprehend. We cannot fathom how insignificant we are.
On the other hand, it might be the case that everything matters. Perhaps there is a glorious afterlife for us if we live according to what is right. In that case, there must needs be a set of defined morals and ethics, otherwise how would there be any kind of reckoning after we die? If there is some form of an afterlife, than it is most likely that every single action we perform has some significance, and that every action we fail to perform has some consequence. In this model, we find ourselves with the possibility of some great reward, but at the cost of moral rectitude instead of moral ambiguity.
It is difficult to acknowledge that we live in a world of extremes, but we often over-estimate the true gray area of the world. One cannot be a follower of Christ if some great teaching of Jesus is completely ignored. One can also not be a physicist if he considers natual laws to be "relative." In our modern world-view, we have come to scoff at those who think of scientific discoveries as "relative" but we still believe that relativism can be present in ethics, philosophy and theology. It used to be the case that philosophers would compete over whose ideas were correct and whose view of virtues was right. Men would argue in the marketplace about who they followed and why they thought the other person's views were skewed. Now we live in a world where the idea of "live and let live" is prevalent.
We live in a very morally relativistic society. We always hear and in fact are usually guilty of saying things such as "Well, that's just your opinion." In our minds, what we think is right or wrong is not a system of absolutes. And, in fact, often times we view moral rectitude as a matter of politics.
However, it is a logical contradiction to state that everything is relative, morally speaking. For, if this is the case, then it is also necessarily the case that morals are null and void. There is no constraint in morals, and thus, the laws that govern society and are supposed to protect us are nothing more than a few people in Washington's ideas of what morality is. Thus, it would not be morally wrong to kill one's neighbor, cheat on one's wife, steal someone else's property or gain anything at the cost of someone else, as long as it was done in such a way that the person performing the action thought he was in the right.
This leads us to a Nietzschean point of view. Once again, whatever we do is part of our will to power. Nothing that we do is "evil" since "evil" is an invention of those who feel contempt for others. This leads to the ever popular idea of "eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die."
Here's where everything comes to a head. If our moral actions are relative, than there is no consequence for anything after we die. Thus it can also be deduced that there is no afterlife, and that this is all there is. This is where the Existentialists get their strength, but also where they fail to fully follow through with their logic.
If everything we do has no bearing on what happens to us after we die, than there is no significant difference, in terms of post-mortality, on how it affects us. Since the universe is billions of years old, and will continue to exist for billions of years, and we live for generally a maximum of a hundred years, it is obvious that our lives count for probably no more than a billionth of the time of the universe. And since right now there are six billion people alive on this planet, the impact we make in that one billionth of the universe's time is probably only a six billionth. Thus in the grand scheme of things, whatever we do, in all likeliness, amounts to no more than a pentillionth of any kind of significance on this planet. If there are other populated planets in the universe, than it is even less. Thus we see, that if we have no future to look forward to, it's not a matter of "living it up" because there is nothing to live up. If we can look past the noses on our faces, we will not only realize that our time here is extremely finite, but the space that we occupy, in terms of the universe, is infinitismal. And, if current scientific thought is correct, our universe, which was born of the big bang, will eventually collapse, and a new universe wil be born, continuing a cycle of infinite temporality.
Therefore, if there is nothing to look forward to, we, ourselves, are nothing. The question of morality becomes one that has no purpose, since we ourselves serve no purpose and occupy a space and time unimaginable to comprehend. We cannot fathom how insignificant we are.
On the other hand, it might be the case that everything matters. Perhaps there is a glorious afterlife for us if we live according to what is right. In that case, there must needs be a set of defined morals and ethics, otherwise how would there be any kind of reckoning after we die? If there is some form of an afterlife, than it is most likely that every single action we perform has some significance, and that every action we fail to perform has some consequence. In this model, we find ourselves with the possibility of some great reward, but at the cost of moral rectitude instead of moral ambiguity.
It is difficult to acknowledge that we live in a world of extremes, but we often over-estimate the true gray area of the world. One cannot be a follower of Christ if some great teaching of Jesus is completely ignored. One can also not be a physicist if he considers natual laws to be "relative." In our modern world-view, we have come to scoff at those who think of scientific discoveries as "relative" but we still believe that relativism can be present in ethics, philosophy and theology. It used to be the case that philosophers would compete over whose ideas were correct and whose view of virtues was right. Men would argue in the marketplace about who they followed and why they thought the other person's views were skewed. Now we live in a world where the idea of "live and let live" is prevalent.
So, we must ask ourselves, is it a matter of Nihilism, and nothing has any significance, or Mysticism, and everything has a purpose and place?
Of course, answering the question that there is a definite set of morals to which we should adhere does not, by any means, answer as to which ones should be followed. The question of moral rectitude is not one which I can personally define with guaranteed accuracy, nor one that I feel confident that I understand. A quick glance through the newspaper, especially the Editorials, will reveal how complex a question moral rectitude actually is.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Friedrich Nietzsche
Over the last year, I have heard professors offer their opinions on who the movers and shakers of the intellectual, especially theological and philosophical, world are. Names such as Martin Luther, Soren Kierkegaard, Blaise Pascal, Karl Barth, John Calvin and others come up. However, I think the biggest person who influenced the shift in the theological world was Friedrich Nietzsche.
One must first understand all the things that happened before Nietzsche. In the three centuries preceding his life, the Christian world was rocked by the Protestant Reformation, the Scientific Revolution, the Enlightenment and various political revolutions, not least of which was the French Revolution. All of these events laid the groundwork for this German philosopher.
The first time I read Nietzsche I felt uneasy. He came off to me like a out-of-reach itch on one's back. It was there, and it was impossible to ignore, but it was hard to alleviate the irritation it caused. I remember that as I read him, I saw the logic and truth of a lot of his philosophical obeservations, up until he reached his conclusions. This I have found to be the greatest problem with Nietzsche--rather than fixing what many would term the social ills, he only exacerbates them.
Point in case: Nietzsche says that all men follow the will to power, therefore there is nothing which we should allow to stand in our ways on the path to power (a very Raskolnikov notion). Rather than seeing this terrible proposition and fleeing from it, society has embraced it. All means justify their ends. All terrible, destructive behaviors, so long as they provide good for the person performing the actions, are worth-while, no matter the cost physically, emotionally, morally, environmentally, spiritually, socially or economically.
Second point in case: Nietzsche says that Judaism and Christianity ruined traditional ethics and man must return to the "Aryan," conquering ideology of the Romans. Big, conglomerate corporations put small businesses out of work with no remorse. Certain countries, rather than striving for peaceful co-existence, force the surrender of their enemies through the possession of superior weaponry. Men abuse their wives and children if they think that their family members are "acting up."
Shouldn't preachers be preaching against this from the pulpit? Shouldn't they be discouraging the philosophies of a man who could very well be considered the antichrist? Shouldn't they be defending traditional Christian ethics? Shouldn't they defend Christianity's transformation of Eros? Shouldn't they discourage the will to power? Shouldn't they discourage the peasants from "dancing in the streets with satyr-like gyrations"?
Then comes the second attack from Nietzsche. Not only has he pervaded Christianity and shown that it is our true nature to be defunct, baseless creatures, but he has also declared, "God is dead, and we have killed him." He laughs at the believers. He openly tells us that the preachers and theologians are men who are trying to deny humans their true potential. And people have heard his cry. They have taken up the banner and chant in the streets that their is no God. They ask themselves, as Zarthustra questioned after speaking to the old prophet, "Can it truly be that this man has not heard the news that God is dead?" They preach against the Christians as a blight on humanity, much the way that Nietzsche has.
So there we have it. Those who proclaim themselves to be the Christians Nietzsche so violently hates are secretly his disciples. Those who proclaim his very words have still stuck to Christian ethics. The true disciple of Christ is becoming rarer and rarer, while the disciples of Nietzsche are ever amassing. So, despite the radical theological ideas of Bultmann, Reimarus, Aquinas, Zwingli, Schleiermacher, and von Balthasar, Nietzsche is the one to whom we should turn to discover the source of the modern world-view of theology and ethics.
One must first understand all the things that happened before Nietzsche. In the three centuries preceding his life, the Christian world was rocked by the Protestant Reformation, the Scientific Revolution, the Enlightenment and various political revolutions, not least of which was the French Revolution. All of these events laid the groundwork for this German philosopher.
The first time I read Nietzsche I felt uneasy. He came off to me like a out-of-reach itch on one's back. It was there, and it was impossible to ignore, but it was hard to alleviate the irritation it caused. I remember that as I read him, I saw the logic and truth of a lot of his philosophical obeservations, up until he reached his conclusions. This I have found to be the greatest problem with Nietzsche--rather than fixing what many would term the social ills, he only exacerbates them.
Point in case: Nietzsche says that all men follow the will to power, therefore there is nothing which we should allow to stand in our ways on the path to power (a very Raskolnikov notion). Rather than seeing this terrible proposition and fleeing from it, society has embraced it. All means justify their ends. All terrible, destructive behaviors, so long as they provide good for the person performing the actions, are worth-while, no matter the cost physically, emotionally, morally, environmentally, spiritually, socially or economically.
Second point in case: Nietzsche says that Judaism and Christianity ruined traditional ethics and man must return to the "Aryan," conquering ideology of the Romans. Big, conglomerate corporations put small businesses out of work with no remorse. Certain countries, rather than striving for peaceful co-existence, force the surrender of their enemies through the possession of superior weaponry. Men abuse their wives and children if they think that their family members are "acting up."
Shouldn't preachers be preaching against this from the pulpit? Shouldn't they be discouraging the philosophies of a man who could very well be considered the antichrist? Shouldn't they be defending traditional Christian ethics? Shouldn't they defend Christianity's transformation of Eros? Shouldn't they discourage the will to power? Shouldn't they discourage the peasants from "dancing in the streets with satyr-like gyrations"?
Then comes the second attack from Nietzsche. Not only has he pervaded Christianity and shown that it is our true nature to be defunct, baseless creatures, but he has also declared, "God is dead, and we have killed him." He laughs at the believers. He openly tells us that the preachers and theologians are men who are trying to deny humans their true potential. And people have heard his cry. They have taken up the banner and chant in the streets that their is no God. They ask themselves, as Zarthustra questioned after speaking to the old prophet, "Can it truly be that this man has not heard the news that God is dead?" They preach against the Christians as a blight on humanity, much the way that Nietzsche has.
So there we have it. Those who proclaim themselves to be the Christians Nietzsche so violently hates are secretly his disciples. Those who proclaim his very words have still stuck to Christian ethics. The true disciple of Christ is becoming rarer and rarer, while the disciples of Nietzsche are ever amassing. So, despite the radical theological ideas of Bultmann, Reimarus, Aquinas, Zwingli, Schleiermacher, and von Balthasar, Nietzsche is the one to whom we should turn to discover the source of the modern world-view of theology and ethics.
Monday, May 25, 2009
Memorial Day
I know that this post will probably upset more than one person. However, this is a topic that has been on my mind a lot for the last few months.
Tomorrow is Memorial Day. I'd always been taught as a kid that it's a day when we honor all the fallen soldiers. I guess now it's more of a day when we honor everyone who has died. But it's not in the memorial of the dead that I take any kind of offense. It's in the glorification of the warrior.
I'm sure that in Churches all across the country today, in Homilies and Sermons alike, the topic of "the sacrifice of those who fought for our freedom" was discussed. Why is this discussed in Church? Are we not supposed to have some kind of separation between Church and state? As Christians we should realize that many of the wars we have fought have been against fellow Christians. And even aside from this, the others are still children of God, made in His image and likeness as well.
I feel it is a highly overplayed and shameless tactic to call all American soldiers people who "have fought for our freedom." What freedom were we looking for in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan? What freedoms were we looking for when we ran through Mexico and South America? How can we proclaim to be fighting to defend our liberty when nobody is attacking us?
What also, of those shameless atrocities committed during war? What of massacres like Mai Lai? What of the raping of innocents? What of the trauma inflicted on those caught in the crossfire? What of slaughtering other men who feel just as justified in fighting for their cause? How can we glorify such action? How can we call our cause admirable if we're willing to kill others rather than reconcile with them?
Jesus told us to make peace with our brothers. He told us to turn the other cheek and to meekly accept persecution. He called the sufferers great. He commanded us to be peacemakers. He told us that the greatest commandment is not to kill, but to love.
Rather than saluting those who for one reason or another took the path of the warrior, I'd like to salute those that didn't.I wish to salute the draft dodgers of the Vietnam era. I wish to praise men who "ran like cowards" rather than accepting the mandated call to arms. I wish to glorify the students who died at Kent State for protesting an unjust war.
I think of Dorothy Day, and her words on the end of the Second World War. When the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, killing 300,000 Japanese, President Truman was "jubilant." Dorothy Day was horrified. How can we be jubilant about anything which causes such great death and destruction? How can we laud any kind of weaponry advances? Why do we pray for the men and women in the armed forces rather than praying for an immediate cessation of conflict?
I find myself praying ever more for peace. I pray more and more for heads of state to seek alternative measures to armed conflict. I pray that we Americans will cease to idolize the virtues of Vergil's Aeneid and trade them for Erasmus' Handbook of The Christian Soldier. I pray that we strive more for the martyr's death than the hero's death. I pray that our role models will be men and women of great faith and great acts of charity rather than men and women of great courage and great acts of battle-field valor.
Tomorrow is Memorial Day. I'd always been taught as a kid that it's a day when we honor all the fallen soldiers. I guess now it's more of a day when we honor everyone who has died. But it's not in the memorial of the dead that I take any kind of offense. It's in the glorification of the warrior.
I'm sure that in Churches all across the country today, in Homilies and Sermons alike, the topic of "the sacrifice of those who fought for our freedom" was discussed. Why is this discussed in Church? Are we not supposed to have some kind of separation between Church and state? As Christians we should realize that many of the wars we have fought have been against fellow Christians. And even aside from this, the others are still children of God, made in His image and likeness as well.
I feel it is a highly overplayed and shameless tactic to call all American soldiers people who "have fought for our freedom." What freedom were we looking for in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan? What freedoms were we looking for when we ran through Mexico and South America? How can we proclaim to be fighting to defend our liberty when nobody is attacking us?
What also, of those shameless atrocities committed during war? What of massacres like Mai Lai? What of the raping of innocents? What of the trauma inflicted on those caught in the crossfire? What of slaughtering other men who feel just as justified in fighting for their cause? How can we glorify such action? How can we call our cause admirable if we're willing to kill others rather than reconcile with them?
Jesus told us to make peace with our brothers. He told us to turn the other cheek and to meekly accept persecution. He called the sufferers great. He commanded us to be peacemakers. He told us that the greatest commandment is not to kill, but to love.
Rather than saluting those who for one reason or another took the path of the warrior, I'd like to salute those that didn't.I wish to salute the draft dodgers of the Vietnam era. I wish to praise men who "ran like cowards" rather than accepting the mandated call to arms. I wish to glorify the students who died at Kent State for protesting an unjust war.
I think of Dorothy Day, and her words on the end of the Second World War. When the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, killing 300,000 Japanese, President Truman was "jubilant." Dorothy Day was horrified. How can we be jubilant about anything which causes such great death and destruction? How can we laud any kind of weaponry advances? Why do we pray for the men and women in the armed forces rather than praying for an immediate cessation of conflict?
I find myself praying ever more for peace. I pray more and more for heads of state to seek alternative measures to armed conflict. I pray that we Americans will cease to idolize the virtues of Vergil's Aeneid and trade them for Erasmus' Handbook of The Christian Soldier. I pray that we strive more for the martyr's death than the hero's death. I pray that our role models will be men and women of great faith and great acts of charity rather than men and women of great courage and great acts of battle-field valor.
Saturday, May 23, 2009
Quid Homo?
Several things recently have called me to ponder what it means to be human. Apparently this is Darwin's 200 year birthday and 150 year anniversary of his famous voyage on the HMS Beagle. And President Obama's visit to the Notre Dame campus to deliver a graduation speech called the issue of human life into question. Additionally, certain movies as of recent have made me ponder what it is to be human.
It seems that humans have always pondered our being. The writers of the Bible viewed humans as the culmination of God's creation, even as being in the image of God. Greek philosophers pondered what separates us from the animals via the virtues. The Hindus and Buddhists believed that the human form was the highest form our souls could take and the only one by which we could ascend to Nirvana. Jesus refers to God as our father. Athanasius says we are made in the image and likeness of God. Thomas Aquinas refers to man as the rational animal.
Today the question is even more relevant. Genetic research shows us that we are only separated from apes by a fraction of our DNA pattern. But beyond this, the ethical problems of science denote how we conceive of the human person. Stem cell research is highly controversial. Cloning is taboo and certain medical operations are viewed as wrong.
Despite all the efforts modern scientific thought uses to show that human kind is not special, it is clear that most people don't believe that. It is as Pope John Paul II said when he declared that the Darwinian formula does not account for the sacredness of human kind. We all believe, deep down inside of us, that human beings are something greater than bags of flesh. We strive to accomplish great feats. We seek to demonstrate our individuality, our uniqueness, our special essence that identifies us as being a separate specie of the human genus. We write books, paint portraits, film movies, build towers and monuments. We seek to know everything. We look to the skies and ponder the vastness of space. We look inside of us and ponder the human mind and body. We traverse the oceans, deserts, jungles and plains detailing the vegetation and animals we discover. We markedly separate ourselves from the rest of the animal kingdom by the vast intellectual, emotional, creative and spiritual quests we undertake.
It seems to me that most of humanity has conceived of humans as being composed of at least a soul and a body. The Greeks viewed the highest part of the soul, the Logos, as the part that lived on past life. The Romans viewed the Anima as separate from the Corpus and the Spiritus, and the part that makes us who we are. Christians view the body and soul as parts of a whole person. Buddhists and Hindus view bodies as temporal but our essence as existing afterward. Even today, we speak of perhaps being "spiritual" but not "religious."
Even in our horror we can note how the body and soul are necessary parts of the person. From time immemorial we have been frightened of disembodied spirits. Vampires, on the other hand, are soulless bodies. Other undead, such as Frankenstein's Monster, mummies and zombies are also soulless bodies. In traditional horror (as of late, horror has focused more on the grotesque and disordered rather than on the genuinely unholy) the villain has always been some unholy, fractured human.
However, lately, there seems to have been a question as to whether or not this is legitimate. Alasdair MacIntyre suggests that during the Englightenment we lost the idea of having a purpose, a telos, for our morals. However, the philosophers of that time failed to explain adequately why we would have universal laws. For all the trying, they never fully explained to what end humans are moving. Here I feel the famous pseudo-theologian C. S. Lewis' explanation of a natural law that denotes a God comes into play. All humans have inside of us a something that pushes us toward universal ends. We all have similar morals, similar goals, similar emotions for similar things. We all have souls that guide and direct us.
Thus, I have concluded that the human is not a simple body. We are not merely animals. We are not a rung on the ladder of evolution. We are the culmination of all things. We all have inside of us an essence, a great something that distinguishes us from every other creature. Our minds and thoughts, our drives and inklings, and our very selves are distinct and unique.
It seems that humans have always pondered our being. The writers of the Bible viewed humans as the culmination of God's creation, even as being in the image of God. Greek philosophers pondered what separates us from the animals via the virtues. The Hindus and Buddhists believed that the human form was the highest form our souls could take and the only one by which we could ascend to Nirvana. Jesus refers to God as our father. Athanasius says we are made in the image and likeness of God. Thomas Aquinas refers to man as the rational animal.
Today the question is even more relevant. Genetic research shows us that we are only separated from apes by a fraction of our DNA pattern. But beyond this, the ethical problems of science denote how we conceive of the human person. Stem cell research is highly controversial. Cloning is taboo and certain medical operations are viewed as wrong.
Despite all the efforts modern scientific thought uses to show that human kind is not special, it is clear that most people don't believe that. It is as Pope John Paul II said when he declared that the Darwinian formula does not account for the sacredness of human kind. We all believe, deep down inside of us, that human beings are something greater than bags of flesh. We strive to accomplish great feats. We seek to demonstrate our individuality, our uniqueness, our special essence that identifies us as being a separate specie of the human genus. We write books, paint portraits, film movies, build towers and monuments. We seek to know everything. We look to the skies and ponder the vastness of space. We look inside of us and ponder the human mind and body. We traverse the oceans, deserts, jungles and plains detailing the vegetation and animals we discover. We markedly separate ourselves from the rest of the animal kingdom by the vast intellectual, emotional, creative and spiritual quests we undertake.
It seems to me that most of humanity has conceived of humans as being composed of at least a soul and a body. The Greeks viewed the highest part of the soul, the Logos, as the part that lived on past life. The Romans viewed the Anima as separate from the Corpus and the Spiritus, and the part that makes us who we are. Christians view the body and soul as parts of a whole person. Buddhists and Hindus view bodies as temporal but our essence as existing afterward. Even today, we speak of perhaps being "spiritual" but not "religious."
Even in our horror we can note how the body and soul are necessary parts of the person. From time immemorial we have been frightened of disembodied spirits. Vampires, on the other hand, are soulless bodies. Other undead, such as Frankenstein's Monster, mummies and zombies are also soulless bodies. In traditional horror (as of late, horror has focused more on the grotesque and disordered rather than on the genuinely unholy) the villain has always been some unholy, fractured human.
However, lately, there seems to have been a question as to whether or not this is legitimate. Alasdair MacIntyre suggests that during the Englightenment we lost the idea of having a purpose, a telos, for our morals. However, the philosophers of that time failed to explain adequately why we would have universal laws. For all the trying, they never fully explained to what end humans are moving. Here I feel the famous pseudo-theologian C. S. Lewis' explanation of a natural law that denotes a God comes into play. All humans have inside of us a something that pushes us toward universal ends. We all have similar morals, similar goals, similar emotions for similar things. We all have souls that guide and direct us.
Thus, I have concluded that the human is not a simple body. We are not merely animals. We are not a rung on the ladder of evolution. We are the culmination of all things. We all have inside of us an essence, a great something that distinguishes us from every other creature. Our minds and thoughts, our drives and inklings, and our very selves are distinct and unique.
Friday, May 22, 2009
Scandalus
What is it about Christians that makes a lot of the rest of the world despise us? Surely there is the conservative Christians that make a lot of people cringe. And our reservation and prudence also make us a bit peculiar. But what of our message itself?
"We preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to the Jews and foolishness to the Gentiles" wrote Paul (1 Corinth 1:23). And really, how silly is it, from the outside, to say that God became man?
From one perspective, we look Greek. Our God is now encased in human flesh, much the way Hercules was. All the Olympic gods existed in a physical sense in this world. They all had bodies. They took on many forms.
"But," we might argue, "our god paid the price for sin and was exalted." This sounds like Odin, the "Allfather" of the Norsemen who hung on a tree for three days in order to give to mankind the sacred runes. After the three days, he regained his spot as head of the gods.
This is where we take on a monotheistic view of God. Not only did our god take on all of our sins, but he is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, a notion that escapes the Romans, Greeks and Vikings. Truly, St. Augustine says that all things are held by our god, and our god is in all things.
So here our God seems more like the God of the Jews, who created the heaven and the earth and has the ability to manipulate time and space itself according to His wishes.
This is why it is a stumbling block. At first glance it looks nonsensical. The outsider gets lost in the trinitarian language of the Council of Nicaea and the message of Word become Flesh.
Here is where Athanasius seems to help out. To Athanasius, and in fact to St. Anselm as well, Christ is God's way of restoring humanity. We have fallen; fallen of our choosing. Because of this transgression against God, we, who are unholy and imperfect, cannot hope to dwell with God, who is holy and perfect. This is not in God's plan, so God comes to restore humanity.
Now, here is where it gets tricky. Man cannot redeem himself, for how can one restore what he never had attained. However, it was necessary for man to make restoration, since it was man who sinned. So God comes down in the person of Jesus, takes on our sins and dies. This process restores us to God.
Even with the explanation of our faith, it still seems incredible. It is a fantastic-sounding story that necessitates our faith. Even with the philosophical arguments for God, Christ's existence is not obvious.
So I say, since our message is one that is offensive enough, our call is to not be offensive. We are to go out with humility, meekness, mercy, temperance and all the commands that Christ laid upon us. St Francis of Assisi once wisely said, "Preach Christ crucified always, if necessary, use words." It is more important that our actions preach our message than our shouts. For, all of our words can be proven wrong by our actions, but our actions are never proven wrong by our words.
"We preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to the Jews and foolishness to the Gentiles" wrote Paul (1 Corinth 1:23). And really, how silly is it, from the outside, to say that God became man?
From one perspective, we look Greek. Our God is now encased in human flesh, much the way Hercules was. All the Olympic gods existed in a physical sense in this world. They all had bodies. They took on many forms.
"But," we might argue, "our god paid the price for sin and was exalted." This sounds like Odin, the "Allfather" of the Norsemen who hung on a tree for three days in order to give to mankind the sacred runes. After the three days, he regained his spot as head of the gods.
This is where we take on a monotheistic view of God. Not only did our god take on all of our sins, but he is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, a notion that escapes the Romans, Greeks and Vikings. Truly, St. Augustine says that all things are held by our god, and our god is in all things.
So here our God seems more like the God of the Jews, who created the heaven and the earth and has the ability to manipulate time and space itself according to His wishes.
This is why it is a stumbling block. At first glance it looks nonsensical. The outsider gets lost in the trinitarian language of the Council of Nicaea and the message of Word become Flesh.
Here is where Athanasius seems to help out. To Athanasius, and in fact to St. Anselm as well, Christ is God's way of restoring humanity. We have fallen; fallen of our choosing. Because of this transgression against God, we, who are unholy and imperfect, cannot hope to dwell with God, who is holy and perfect. This is not in God's plan, so God comes to restore humanity.
Now, here is where it gets tricky. Man cannot redeem himself, for how can one restore what he never had attained. However, it was necessary for man to make restoration, since it was man who sinned. So God comes down in the person of Jesus, takes on our sins and dies. This process restores us to God.
Even with the explanation of our faith, it still seems incredible. It is a fantastic-sounding story that necessitates our faith. Even with the philosophical arguments for God, Christ's existence is not obvious.
So I say, since our message is one that is offensive enough, our call is to not be offensive. We are to go out with humility, meekness, mercy, temperance and all the commands that Christ laid upon us. St Francis of Assisi once wisely said, "Preach Christ crucified always, if necessary, use words." It is more important that our actions preach our message than our shouts. For, all of our words can be proven wrong by our actions, but our actions are never proven wrong by our words.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Finis Orbis (Eschatology Part 2)
REM once sang, "It's the End of the World as we know it, and I feel fine." The idea of an end of the world is not a new one, but it is one that can almost only be traced to Judaic origins.
Most ancient cultures viewed history as cyclical. If there were bad times, good times were always certain to follow. If one city was destroyed, another was rebuilt. With death comes life. All the cosmos followed a cycle that mimicked the seasons of the year. With every spring, there would inevitably be a summer and an autumn.
The evidence for this is seen in how some civilizations have no concept of the end all. The Greeks might talk of battles and deaths, but they never tend to move toward anything final.
Related to this is the notion of reincarnation. If we are in a cycle of reincarnation, then there is really no final destruction that the world is headed toward. As I mentioned yesterday, the Buddhists and the Hindus believe in a system of reincarnation. Similarly, Socrates, in the Phaedo gives us an account of the afterlife wherein souls are recyled, and Vergil, in the Aeneid presents an afterlife where souls eventually lose their memory until they are ready to be reborn into humans.
In fact, the only Pagan belief system that comes to mind when talking about some sort of end of history is the religion of the Vikings, wherein the earth is consumed in fire and flood in the final battle between the gods called Ragnarok.
But Monotheists have always had an idea of history being linear. Things start off positively, like the perfect Garden of Eden. Following this, there is inevitable wickedness. Mankind continues in his path of sinfulness, only getting worse and worse until the final pivotal moment of history wherein God justifies the oppressed, punishes the sinner and restores perfection and justice to the earth.
There are numerous texts that illustrate this idea. In the Old Testament we have books such as Daniel, Jeremiah and Isaiah. In the New Testament we have passages in the synoptic Gospels, as well as in Galatians and the Revelation. These passages (with the exception of Galatians and the Gospels) are part of a literary genre called "apocalyptic." They follow a set pattern, but inherent in them are symbols, a final judgment and knowledge previously unknown to the world. There are other instances of apocalyptic texts such as the Gospel of Abraham and other texts from Qumran.
Now, to get towards the point. Many men for centuries have taken the symbols of these books, especially numbers and places, and formulated theories about when the world would end. It is obvious that the early Christians expected Jesus to return before most of them died. Numerous groups have arisen throughout history, foretelling the end of the world at a specific date. Among these are the present day Seveth-Day Adventists.
Every one of these groups claims to have seen the "signs of the times." Miller was certain the world would end on May 6, 1840. Some saw the Great Depression as a sign of the last days. During the Cold War, the threat of nuclear annihilation seemed to come straight from scripture.
More recently, there was talk that January 1, 2000 would be the second coming, and now it is some time in May of 2012.
It is obvious that time and again we have been wrong about when the world would end. Why should we panic? Why should we stocking up our bomb shelters? I suggest that we live our lives as if each day is our last, but not as if the world will end. Why should we cease living the call to be in the world simply because we have used some strange math to calculate the end times? As Jesus himself says in Mark 13:30 "Of that day and time, no man knoweth."
Most ancient cultures viewed history as cyclical. If there were bad times, good times were always certain to follow. If one city was destroyed, another was rebuilt. With death comes life. All the cosmos followed a cycle that mimicked the seasons of the year. With every spring, there would inevitably be a summer and an autumn.
The evidence for this is seen in how some civilizations have no concept of the end all. The Greeks might talk of battles and deaths, but they never tend to move toward anything final.
Related to this is the notion of reincarnation. If we are in a cycle of reincarnation, then there is really no final destruction that the world is headed toward. As I mentioned yesterday, the Buddhists and the Hindus believe in a system of reincarnation. Similarly, Socrates, in the Phaedo gives us an account of the afterlife wherein souls are recyled, and Vergil, in the Aeneid presents an afterlife where souls eventually lose their memory until they are ready to be reborn into humans.
In fact, the only Pagan belief system that comes to mind when talking about some sort of end of history is the religion of the Vikings, wherein the earth is consumed in fire and flood in the final battle between the gods called Ragnarok.
But Monotheists have always had an idea of history being linear. Things start off positively, like the perfect Garden of Eden. Following this, there is inevitable wickedness. Mankind continues in his path of sinfulness, only getting worse and worse until the final pivotal moment of history wherein God justifies the oppressed, punishes the sinner and restores perfection and justice to the earth.
There are numerous texts that illustrate this idea. In the Old Testament we have books such as Daniel, Jeremiah and Isaiah. In the New Testament we have passages in the synoptic Gospels, as well as in Galatians and the Revelation. These passages (with the exception of Galatians and the Gospels) are part of a literary genre called "apocalyptic." They follow a set pattern, but inherent in them are symbols, a final judgment and knowledge previously unknown to the world. There are other instances of apocalyptic texts such as the Gospel of Abraham and other texts from Qumran.
Now, to get towards the point. Many men for centuries have taken the symbols of these books, especially numbers and places, and formulated theories about when the world would end. It is obvious that the early Christians expected Jesus to return before most of them died. Numerous groups have arisen throughout history, foretelling the end of the world at a specific date. Among these are the present day Seveth-Day Adventists.
Every one of these groups claims to have seen the "signs of the times." Miller was certain the world would end on May 6, 1840. Some saw the Great Depression as a sign of the last days. During the Cold War, the threat of nuclear annihilation seemed to come straight from scripture.
More recently, there was talk that January 1, 2000 would be the second coming, and now it is some time in May of 2012.
It is obvious that time and again we have been wrong about when the world would end. Why should we panic? Why should we stocking up our bomb shelters? I suggest that we live our lives as if each day is our last, but not as if the world will end. Why should we cease living the call to be in the world simply because we have used some strange math to calculate the end times? As Jesus himself says in Mark 13:30 "Of that day and time, no man knoweth."
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Post mortem (Eschatology part 1)
I will first admit that I do not have any hidden knowledge about the "hereafter." Like a good Christian, I believe that there is a glorious afterlife in store for us as part of God's Grace. However, whether this will literally be in the clouds or rather some other, noncorporeal setting, I don't know.
What intrigues me, though, is that there have been so many different accounts of the afterlife. Dante presents a three leveled system that many Catholics hold to today. Many Christians today imagine "heaven" as a place in the clouds. Buddhists and Hindus believe in reincarnation--for the Buddhists until one reaches Nirvana. Muslims and Jews hold to a similar afterlife experience as Christians do, one in which we dwell with God. Mormons believe that eventually they may become like God (a topic for another day).
But we have not held on, for time imemorial, to the idea of a glorious and perfect dwelling with God. In the Old Testament, the afterlife is referred to as Sheol. Eventually, as seen in Luke 16:19-28, the idea that we could dwell with exalted relatives started to emerge. Similarly, in the ancient Greek and Roman system, the Elysian Fields came far after the idea of Hades.
There's where we run into the peculiar thing. For some reason, accounts of suffering and torture are more prominent in our ideas of the afterlife than of glory. The Egyptian Book of the Dead proscribes all sorts of punishments that can befall one's soul if one is not absolutely careful on the way to the underworld. Dante's Inferno is far more popular than Il Purgatorio or Il Paradiso. Even in Norse myth, the realm of Hel is solely devoted to punishing souls while the valiant only get a hall in the vast kingdom of Asgard.
From these facts I gather two observations. The first is that mankind has almost always believed in A) a soul and B) its eternality. Even in the most ancient Epic of Gilgamesh, an afterlife is described (though many scholars believe it to be an addendum to the original text). After we have finished our existence here, we go on to still exist. It is as if, like Pascal says, we are afraid of being hurled into non-existence. Man cannot bear the thought that at some future date he will not exist. Hence, we live our lives as if we will live forever. We amass fortunes that we can never spend. We put events off indefinitely. We trash our bodies as if they're indestructible. Man cannot bear to even dwell on the thought that there isn't something after this without falling into utter despair.
This is what confuses me about atheism. How can atheists really hope for becoming a nonentity? The greatest one can hope for, at that point, is to attain the kind of fame that men like Homer, Cicero, Socrates and Vergil have attained--fame that spans the eons. However, in a world with a population ove six billion, this is more of a pipe dream than any kind of reality. Really, our sole source of hope lies in having something to look forward to once this is done.
The second thing that I observe is that mankind assumes more often than not that he (or at least his enemies) will inherit an eternal punishment. Hell, Hades, Sheol, Hel, Outer Darkness or a lesser reincarnation--all of these stand as unfavorable destinies, some of which are unavoidable (most likely because we are corrupt and sinful) and others of which are inherited because of our infidelity. We get what we earn. For some reason, man cannot either escape the idea of being eternally punished, just as he cannot escape the idea of nonentity.
The implications of this problem are easy enough to solve. Catholicism (viz Vatican II), Buddhism, Hinduism, Mormonism (to a certain extent) and most ecumenically-minded people all agree that good works will grant you happiness in the hereafter. So, the logical conclusion would be to take on a two-fold effort: first, to conduct good works; and second, to follow Pascal's wager and have faith in a god.
What intrigues me, though, is that there have been so many different accounts of the afterlife. Dante presents a three leveled system that many Catholics hold to today. Many Christians today imagine "heaven" as a place in the clouds. Buddhists and Hindus believe in reincarnation--for the Buddhists until one reaches Nirvana. Muslims and Jews hold to a similar afterlife experience as Christians do, one in which we dwell with God. Mormons believe that eventually they may become like God (a topic for another day).
But we have not held on, for time imemorial, to the idea of a glorious and perfect dwelling with God. In the Old Testament, the afterlife is referred to as Sheol. Eventually, as seen in Luke 16:19-28, the idea that we could dwell with exalted relatives started to emerge. Similarly, in the ancient Greek and Roman system, the Elysian Fields came far after the idea of Hades.
There's where we run into the peculiar thing. For some reason, accounts of suffering and torture are more prominent in our ideas of the afterlife than of glory. The Egyptian Book of the Dead proscribes all sorts of punishments that can befall one's soul if one is not absolutely careful on the way to the underworld. Dante's Inferno is far more popular than Il Purgatorio or Il Paradiso. Even in Norse myth, the realm of Hel is solely devoted to punishing souls while the valiant only get a hall in the vast kingdom of Asgard.
From these facts I gather two observations. The first is that mankind has almost always believed in A) a soul and B) its eternality. Even in the most ancient Epic of Gilgamesh, an afterlife is described (though many scholars believe it to be an addendum to the original text). After we have finished our existence here, we go on to still exist. It is as if, like Pascal says, we are afraid of being hurled into non-existence. Man cannot bear the thought that at some future date he will not exist. Hence, we live our lives as if we will live forever. We amass fortunes that we can never spend. We put events off indefinitely. We trash our bodies as if they're indestructible. Man cannot bear to even dwell on the thought that there isn't something after this without falling into utter despair.
This is what confuses me about atheism. How can atheists really hope for becoming a nonentity? The greatest one can hope for, at that point, is to attain the kind of fame that men like Homer, Cicero, Socrates and Vergil have attained--fame that spans the eons. However, in a world with a population ove six billion, this is more of a pipe dream than any kind of reality. Really, our sole source of hope lies in having something to look forward to once this is done.
The second thing that I observe is that mankind assumes more often than not that he (or at least his enemies) will inherit an eternal punishment. Hell, Hades, Sheol, Hel, Outer Darkness or a lesser reincarnation--all of these stand as unfavorable destinies, some of which are unavoidable (most likely because we are corrupt and sinful) and others of which are inherited because of our infidelity. We get what we earn. For some reason, man cannot either escape the idea of being eternally punished, just as he cannot escape the idea of nonentity.
The implications of this problem are easy enough to solve. Catholicism (viz Vatican II), Buddhism, Hinduism, Mormonism (to a certain extent) and most ecumenically-minded people all agree that good works will grant you happiness in the hereafter. So, the logical conclusion would be to take on a two-fold effort: first, to conduct good works; and second, to follow Pascal's wager and have faith in a god.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Being a Christian in today's world
So I've realized that I write a lot about what it means to be Christian and how different it is from what we normally view as Christianity.
To be fair, it seems to me that most of the people who act Christian tend to be more of the atheistic brand or adhere to some other religion. Those who go by the tag of Christian seem far more Nietzschean to my view.
The question, then, is how are we to reconcile the two camps? With the name of Christians being tarnished right and left, it becomes difficult to maintain a place in this world that is not completely looked down on. We hear people in the scientific and intellectual world tarnishing the name of Christians and the God of our faith. In the world of entertainment, we are represented by self-serving, war-mongering celebreties that portray us to the world in a negative light.
The problem is that there are not enough intellectual Christians to provide sustained dialogue between the atheist scholars and the Christian scholars.
So it is our duty to make a point of engaging the scientific world. One does not have to be an atheist to be a biologist or theoretical physicist. Christianity can engage in intelligent debate about the origins of man or the universe. Evolution is not against God's nature.
In reality, the sad truth is that Christianity has, for a long time, been behind the scientific world. Galileo discovers helio-centrism and is anathema. Charles Darwin discovers biogenetic diversity and is shunned. We cannot be afraid of the scienitfic world. All that that does for us is turns the learned man away from our faith.
Christianity has the honor of having some of the most famous philosophers learned men in its midst. Thomas Aquinas, Augustine, Anselm, Kierkegaard, Pascal, and others have all graced Christianity with their intelligence and skill. It is not incompatible to be Christian and a scholar.
So we need to take up the call to be scholars. We need to engage the scholastic world with substantial discussion instead of hurling insults and refusing rationality. We need to learn to be Christians in our contemporary world, not in years long past.
To be fair, it seems to me that most of the people who act Christian tend to be more of the atheistic brand or adhere to some other religion. Those who go by the tag of Christian seem far more Nietzschean to my view.
The question, then, is how are we to reconcile the two camps? With the name of Christians being tarnished right and left, it becomes difficult to maintain a place in this world that is not completely looked down on. We hear people in the scientific and intellectual world tarnishing the name of Christians and the God of our faith. In the world of entertainment, we are represented by self-serving, war-mongering celebreties that portray us to the world in a negative light.
The problem is that there are not enough intellectual Christians to provide sustained dialogue between the atheist scholars and the Christian scholars.
So it is our duty to make a point of engaging the scientific world. One does not have to be an atheist to be a biologist or theoretical physicist. Christianity can engage in intelligent debate about the origins of man or the universe. Evolution is not against God's nature.
In reality, the sad truth is that Christianity has, for a long time, been behind the scientific world. Galileo discovers helio-centrism and is anathema. Charles Darwin discovers biogenetic diversity and is shunned. We cannot be afraid of the scienitfic world. All that that does for us is turns the learned man away from our faith.
Christianity has the honor of having some of the most famous philosophers learned men in its midst. Thomas Aquinas, Augustine, Anselm, Kierkegaard, Pascal, and others have all graced Christianity with their intelligence and skill. It is not incompatible to be Christian and a scholar.
So we need to take up the call to be scholars. We need to engage the scholastic world with substantial discussion instead of hurling insults and refusing rationality. We need to learn to be Christians in our contemporary world, not in years long past.
Monday, May 18, 2009
Martyrs
Lately I've been thinking about what martyrdom means. For many Christians, martyrdom is the ultimate way to show one's devotion to Christ. Kierkegaard says that unless we are willing to lay down our lives for Christ, we are not true Christians.
In the early parts of the Christian Church, there were many martyrs killed by the Roman Empire. These martyrs are widely looked up to for their courage and fidelity. Most became saints because of their martyrdom. The Emperors Domitian and Diocletian persecuted Christians openly and sent many to their deaths in grueling manners.
St Stephen is widely viewed as the first Christian martyr, and his death is recorded in the Book of Acts. Most of the Apostles were martyred. Peter was crucified upside-down. Paul was beheaded by Emperor Nero because he was a Roman Citizen.
With all the praise that goes to the Christian martyrs, it is also important to note that not every martyr's cause is a true cause.
Many unjust men and faulty causes have used martyrdom to prove correctness. Jim Jones thought that the fact that government was pursuing him proved that he was correct. Many suicide bombers and terrorists view their deaths as proving their point. The Heaven's Gate cult thought their suicides would bring them eternal joy on Hale's Comet. The arrest of Warren Jeffs only strengthened the FLDS Church's resolve.
In addition to this, what of the different martyrs from different faiths? There were the Christian martyrs, there were Jewish martyrs, Muslim martyrs, Buddhist martyrs, and Mormon martyrs. How do we reconcile so many martyrs with so many different faith traditions? Do we just look at the faith that has yielded the most martyrs?
I have heard that the Twentieth Century brought about the most Christian martyrs, especially with the wars that were fought and the genocides that occurred. How are the deaths of men like Dietrich Bonhoeffer to be compared with men like David Koresh?
We can look up to martyrs, but we cannot say that because somebody is a martyr, their faith is valid. Plenty of men have died for unworthy causes. Plenty have lived for worthy causes. Where we really need to look is not on the actual martyr, but on the cause that the martyr defended.
In the early parts of the Christian Church, there were many martyrs killed by the Roman Empire. These martyrs are widely looked up to for their courage and fidelity. Most became saints because of their martyrdom. The Emperors Domitian and Diocletian persecuted Christians openly and sent many to their deaths in grueling manners.
St Stephen is widely viewed as the first Christian martyr, and his death is recorded in the Book of Acts. Most of the Apostles were martyred. Peter was crucified upside-down. Paul was beheaded by Emperor Nero because he was a Roman Citizen.
With all the praise that goes to the Christian martyrs, it is also important to note that not every martyr's cause is a true cause.
Many unjust men and faulty causes have used martyrdom to prove correctness. Jim Jones thought that the fact that government was pursuing him proved that he was correct. Many suicide bombers and terrorists view their deaths as proving their point. The Heaven's Gate cult thought their suicides would bring them eternal joy on Hale's Comet. The arrest of Warren Jeffs only strengthened the FLDS Church's resolve.
In addition to this, what of the different martyrs from different faiths? There were the Christian martyrs, there were Jewish martyrs, Muslim martyrs, Buddhist martyrs, and Mormon martyrs. How do we reconcile so many martyrs with so many different faith traditions? Do we just look at the faith that has yielded the most martyrs?
I have heard that the Twentieth Century brought about the most Christian martyrs, especially with the wars that were fought and the genocides that occurred. How are the deaths of men like Dietrich Bonhoeffer to be compared with men like David Koresh?
We can look up to martyrs, but we cannot say that because somebody is a martyr, their faith is valid. Plenty of men have died for unworthy causes. Plenty have lived for worthy causes. Where we really need to look is not on the actual martyr, but on the cause that the martyr defended.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Our True Calling as Christians
I feel somewhat inclined to write about the Abortion issue and President Obama's visit to Notre Dame. However, because the issue has been so played out over the last few weeks, I do not feel the need.
Rather, I would like to discuss something that I think we often overlook as Christians. The word Christian is used so much to describe people and things. We can live a Christian way of life, visit a Christian bookstore or talk to Christians. We have Christian music, Christian movies, even Christian video games.
None of these things are truly Christian. None of them truly incapsulate the message of Christ. There's been so much debate about Eucharist, Grace, Tradition, Scripture and a plethora of other theological topics over the centuries that we have forgotten what Christ was really all about.
It doesn't matter where we stand on the abortion issue, or where we pledge our allegiances. It doesn't matter if we favor one politician over another. What it comes down to at the end of the day is how we demonstrate Christ-like love.
Christ told us simply that the greatest commandment is to love God, and the second is to love our neighbors (Matthew 22:38-40). "Upon these hang all the law and the prophets."
In the end we aren't judged by our faith, or who we protested or supported. It doesn't matter if we raised millions of dollars for a worthy cause. What does matter is that we love with a Christ-like love.
Even St Paul, in a letter to the Corinthians tells them that the greatest virtues to have are faith, hope and love, but love is the greatest of all of these (1 Corinth. 13:13). Love is greater than faith. This is said by the man who told us that we are only saved through our faith (Galatians 3:14).
So let us not call any cause "Christian" that is not centered fully on love. Let us not call ourselves Christian if we hold hatred in our hearts. Let us not call any lifestyle Christian that hates any people for any reason.
Rather, let us call those Christian who stand up for the oppressed. Let us call those Christian whose intentions and means are filled with love and not anger. Let us revere those as Christians who suffer gracefully the hatred and anger of an unjust world.
Soren Kierkegaard said that there was nothing of worldly value in being a Christian. There is no worldly success in the work of a Christian, nor is there any praise to be gained by his contemporaries. The Christian loves. That is all the Christian does.
Rather, I would like to discuss something that I think we often overlook as Christians. The word Christian is used so much to describe people and things. We can live a Christian way of life, visit a Christian bookstore or talk to Christians. We have Christian music, Christian movies, even Christian video games.
None of these things are truly Christian. None of them truly incapsulate the message of Christ. There's been so much debate about Eucharist, Grace, Tradition, Scripture and a plethora of other theological topics over the centuries that we have forgotten what Christ was really all about.
It doesn't matter where we stand on the abortion issue, or where we pledge our allegiances. It doesn't matter if we favor one politician over another. What it comes down to at the end of the day is how we demonstrate Christ-like love.
Christ told us simply that the greatest commandment is to love God, and the second is to love our neighbors (Matthew 22:38-40). "Upon these hang all the law and the prophets."
In the end we aren't judged by our faith, or who we protested or supported. It doesn't matter if we raised millions of dollars for a worthy cause. What does matter is that we love with a Christ-like love.
Even St Paul, in a letter to the Corinthians tells them that the greatest virtues to have are faith, hope and love, but love is the greatest of all of these (1 Corinth. 13:13). Love is greater than faith. This is said by the man who told us that we are only saved through our faith (Galatians 3:14).
So let us not call any cause "Christian" that is not centered fully on love. Let us not call ourselves Christian if we hold hatred in our hearts. Let us not call any lifestyle Christian that hates any people for any reason.
Rather, let us call those Christian who stand up for the oppressed. Let us call those Christian whose intentions and means are filled with love and not anger. Let us revere those as Christians who suffer gracefully the hatred and anger of an unjust world.
Soren Kierkegaard said that there was nothing of worldly value in being a Christian. There is no worldly success in the work of a Christian, nor is there any praise to be gained by his contemporaries. The Christian loves. That is all the Christian does.
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Religiosity
One of my absolute favorite theologians of the twentieth century, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, criticized religiosity in both one of his letters from prison and The Cost of Discipleship. In fact, many spiritual writers, including Jesus Himself, have criticized false piety.
One of my favorite forms of false piety can be found in prayers. Growing up in a Mormon family, around Mormons, I was generally accustomed to hearing prayers that began something like this:
"Oh great, merciful, loving and kind, all-powerful, ever-living, benevolent and virtuous Eternal Father in Heaven from whom all blessings flow..."
They also tend to end, after much flowery and pompous language:
"We, thy servants, humbly ask of these things, with sincere piety and lowliness of heart and of spirit, in the name of thy wonderful Son, the Great Jehovah, even the Lord Jesus Christ, Amen."
I am reminded in this instance of the prayers of the pharisee and the publican in the temple (Luke 18:10-14). How simple was the publicans prayer? How honest was it? What of the pharisee, the man who had so much going for him and still felt the need to lift himself up before God?
The truth is, we are all worms before God. The believer is no better in the eyes of God than the unbeliever. Yes, we act as if the opposite is the case, but Christ himself said, "not everyone who says to me Lord, Lord will be admitted to the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 7:21). We are not somehow greater than all the rest of humanity simply because we think that our faith is right. Vatican II illumined our understanding by teaching us that those who try to do God's will, independent of what faith they may pursue, will be saved (People of God). So what good is our false piety?
I would venture to guess that there is a substantial amount of people who are turned off of religion because of religiosity. How many people are scared away by our "holier-than-thou" attitudes? How many people see us not as "living in the world but not of the world" but instead as not even living in the world?
I think that monasticism has gathered the disfavor in today's world that it has because of false piety. Those who live truly ascetic lives are viewed as trying to escape the real world. There is a feeling of resentment towards those who seek to escape the world and live in a truly Christian community.
I would also go as far as to say this is why there are an abundance of "reality" churches, or other such watered-down faith traditions. When the ceremony and pomp of church are removed, it is easier for a common man to feel at home.
However, I must warn that church is not a place where we should feel "at home" in the way that we feel at our own homes. Church is not a place to kick off our shoes and drink beer while watching the football game. Church is a place of piety, of worship and of prayerful humility. The only problem that really faces us is realizing our true humility. Being humble doesn't mean taking as we think a pious person speaks. Kierkegaard tells us very clearly that the Knight of Faith is unrecognizable because he dons no special cloak, nor embraces any false piety.
I am reminded of Dorothy Day. Here is a woman who spent her days in very humble circumstances. She took on voluntary poverty as did Francis of Assisi. She assisted the poor. She devoted her time to the Corporal Works of Mercy. Even in her radical, anarchistic, socialistic ways she was always a beacon of true piety. Her true humility didn't repulse others, except for those too full of themselves to realize she was right. Her approach to reaching out to those outside of the faith? "In order to reach the man on the street, we must go out to the man on the street."
One of my favorite forms of false piety can be found in prayers. Growing up in a Mormon family, around Mormons, I was generally accustomed to hearing prayers that began something like this:
"Oh great, merciful, loving and kind, all-powerful, ever-living, benevolent and virtuous Eternal Father in Heaven from whom all blessings flow..."
They also tend to end, after much flowery and pompous language:
"We, thy servants, humbly ask of these things, with sincere piety and lowliness of heart and of spirit, in the name of thy wonderful Son, the Great Jehovah, even the Lord Jesus Christ, Amen."
I am reminded in this instance of the prayers of the pharisee and the publican in the temple (Luke 18:10-14). How simple was the publicans prayer? How honest was it? What of the pharisee, the man who had so much going for him and still felt the need to lift himself up before God?
The truth is, we are all worms before God. The believer is no better in the eyes of God than the unbeliever. Yes, we act as if the opposite is the case, but Christ himself said, "not everyone who says to me Lord, Lord will be admitted to the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 7:21). We are not somehow greater than all the rest of humanity simply because we think that our faith is right. Vatican II illumined our understanding by teaching us that those who try to do God's will, independent of what faith they may pursue, will be saved (People of God). So what good is our false piety?
I would venture to guess that there is a substantial amount of people who are turned off of religion because of religiosity. How many people are scared away by our "holier-than-thou" attitudes? How many people see us not as "living in the world but not of the world" but instead as not even living in the world?
I think that monasticism has gathered the disfavor in today's world that it has because of false piety. Those who live truly ascetic lives are viewed as trying to escape the real world. There is a feeling of resentment towards those who seek to escape the world and live in a truly Christian community.
I would also go as far as to say this is why there are an abundance of "reality" churches, or other such watered-down faith traditions. When the ceremony and pomp of church are removed, it is easier for a common man to feel at home.
However, I must warn that church is not a place where we should feel "at home" in the way that we feel at our own homes. Church is not a place to kick off our shoes and drink beer while watching the football game. Church is a place of piety, of worship and of prayerful humility. The only problem that really faces us is realizing our true humility. Being humble doesn't mean taking as we think a pious person speaks. Kierkegaard tells us very clearly that the Knight of Faith is unrecognizable because he dons no special cloak, nor embraces any false piety.
I am reminded of Dorothy Day. Here is a woman who spent her days in very humble circumstances. She took on voluntary poverty as did Francis of Assisi. She assisted the poor. She devoted her time to the Corporal Works of Mercy. Even in her radical, anarchistic, socialistic ways she was always a beacon of true piety. Her true humility didn't repulse others, except for those too full of themselves to realize she was right. Her approach to reaching out to those outside of the faith? "In order to reach the man on the street, we must go out to the man on the street."
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Augustine contra Darwin
In a 1996 talk entitled "Truth Cannot Contradict Truth," Pope John Paul II announced to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences that evolution does not contradict Christianity. In this talk, the point of human kind's separateness and likeness to God is emphasized.
Of course, innate in this line of thinking is an idea that humankind, though not necessarily coming from two beings in the Garden of Eden whose names were "Adam" and "Eve," is the idea that we descended from some origin divinely set apart by God.
This contradicts a lot of evolutionary theory that depicts the mutations that caused evolution to be random and the selection of traits to be natural. In this case, God has fore-ordained which traits would be passed down to the human species that would make us in His likeness and image.
Now, this kind of thinking does not sit very well with traditional Biblical thinking. Pope John Paul II emphasized that the evolution theories don't depict well the innate spiritual qualities of man nor do they talk about our being the end of God's creation.
So we begin to see where the two don't function very well together. With an Augustinian view of natural sin, how can this correspond in a human history that has no root in the Garden? If we descended from Cro-Magnon and Neanderthals, how is it that we are the only creations created in God's image and likeness?
Furthermore, we begin to see problems like what John Paull II mentions. How do Athanasius' and Anselm's views on the Word made Flesh correspond to a human kind that does not derive its humanity from God? How can Christ take on our sins and become one of us if all we are is a process of random mutations?
I offer no solutions to this problem. I do offer this, however: in the Muslim Empire from the tenth through the thirteenth centuries, science was never seen to contradict faith. If one thought they were in opposition, then it was clear to that person that either his scientific discovery was off, or his faith was not correct. In this case, it is clear that this applies to us. If God is the God of nature and the cosmos, than no scientific law or truth can contradict what God has made so. Thus, if evolution is the way that scientists say it is, then this does not disprove God, only what we think of God.
Of course, innate in this line of thinking is an idea that humankind, though not necessarily coming from two beings in the Garden of Eden whose names were "Adam" and "Eve," is the idea that we descended from some origin divinely set apart by God.
This contradicts a lot of evolutionary theory that depicts the mutations that caused evolution to be random and the selection of traits to be natural. In this case, God has fore-ordained which traits would be passed down to the human species that would make us in His likeness and image.
Now, this kind of thinking does not sit very well with traditional Biblical thinking. Pope John Paul II emphasized that the evolution theories don't depict well the innate spiritual qualities of man nor do they talk about our being the end of God's creation.
So we begin to see where the two don't function very well together. With an Augustinian view of natural sin, how can this correspond in a human history that has no root in the Garden? If we descended from Cro-Magnon and Neanderthals, how is it that we are the only creations created in God's image and likeness?
Furthermore, we begin to see problems like what John Paull II mentions. How do Athanasius' and Anselm's views on the Word made Flesh correspond to a human kind that does not derive its humanity from God? How can Christ take on our sins and become one of us if all we are is a process of random mutations?
I offer no solutions to this problem. I do offer this, however: in the Muslim Empire from the tenth through the thirteenth centuries, science was never seen to contradict faith. If one thought they were in opposition, then it was clear to that person that either his scientific discovery was off, or his faith was not correct. In this case, it is clear that this applies to us. If God is the God of nature and the cosmos, than no scientific law or truth can contradict what God has made so. Thus, if evolution is the way that scientists say it is, then this does not disprove God, only what we think of God.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Pop Theology
Popular theology is an interesting concept, to be sure. Apparently it's not a real word--I've been marked down by theologians for using it in a paper. However, I will likely talk more about it in future posts, but I wished to introduce the idea in this post.
Pop theology is the act of laity theologizing. No, I don't mean trained professors or students who make it their life to study theology. Nor do I mean deacons who might be asked to deliver homilies at Mass. I mean to say that popular theology is the theology of the common man.
I have witnessed this very process several times in my life. The reason it is on my mind at present is that last night I listened to my parents discuss what they thought would occur during the Resurrection.
As far as I can tell, Mormons engage in popular theology more than any other religious groups. Generally, popular theology revolves around things of apocryphal or unclear natures. For example, the afterlife seems to be a huge topic of pop theology. So does Christ's atoning sacrifice.
I don't wish to discount all theological musings of the masses, but I can attest to the fact that it leads to a lot of confusion. There tends to be a large enough spectrum across theologians of the same faith tradition that with the popularization of theology, things only get more and more confusing. How can a non-believer understand what the faithful adhere to if they all follow separate theological ideologies?
In order to be able to properly engage in theological discussion, I believe it is necessary to be aware: first, of what your faith says on the doctrine; second, on what other faiths might say about it; and third, whether or not your specific theology does anything to help with the controversy; and finally, whether or not your specific belief is compatible with the doctrine specifically and your faith tradition overall.
What I mean to say is that there should be some basis for whatever theological discussion you wish to take up. The background is important, as are the intricacies of it.
If, however, we decide to engage in uninformed theological discussion, or preach half-baked theologies we only add to the confusion brewing between Creeds and, at worst, can lead to the kind of disastrous faith traditions that men like David Koresh and Jim Jones started.
Pop theology is the act of laity theologizing. No, I don't mean trained professors or students who make it their life to study theology. Nor do I mean deacons who might be asked to deliver homilies at Mass. I mean to say that popular theology is the theology of the common man.
I have witnessed this very process several times in my life. The reason it is on my mind at present is that last night I listened to my parents discuss what they thought would occur during the Resurrection.
As far as I can tell, Mormons engage in popular theology more than any other religious groups. Generally, popular theology revolves around things of apocryphal or unclear natures. For example, the afterlife seems to be a huge topic of pop theology. So does Christ's atoning sacrifice.
I don't wish to discount all theological musings of the masses, but I can attest to the fact that it leads to a lot of confusion. There tends to be a large enough spectrum across theologians of the same faith tradition that with the popularization of theology, things only get more and more confusing. How can a non-believer understand what the faithful adhere to if they all follow separate theological ideologies?
In order to be able to properly engage in theological discussion, I believe it is necessary to be aware: first, of what your faith says on the doctrine; second, on what other faiths might say about it; and third, whether or not your specific theology does anything to help with the controversy; and finally, whether or not your specific belief is compatible with the doctrine specifically and your faith tradition overall.
What I mean to say is that there should be some basis for whatever theological discussion you wish to take up. The background is important, as are the intricacies of it.
If, however, we decide to engage in uninformed theological discussion, or preach half-baked theologies we only add to the confusion brewing between Creeds and, at worst, can lead to the kind of disastrous faith traditions that men like David Koresh and Jim Jones started.
Monday, May 11, 2009
pax aut bellum
One of the most peculiar things I have seen in American Christianity is the tendency towards violence. To be sure, Christianity has at times embraced violence in an unflattering way. However, in today's culture, it seems that being "A red-blooded American," being "A God-fearing Christian," and "supporting the war effort" have become synonymous.
Why is that? Since when does being a follower of Christ mean taking arms against others. The early Christians were willing to die for their beliefs. Many were submitted to savage punishments, such as crucifixion, and being part of the gladiatorial games. Origen of Alexandria, when his father was arrested for being a Christian, would have gladly turned himself in were it not for the fact that his mother hid his clothing and he would not run out naked (thank God for that!).
Today, though, one sees on the back of cars bumper stickers that proclaim the driver's undying faith in God, complete loyalty to the country and support of our wars.
Can being a Christian be reconcilable with supporting violence?
Many argue that we are liberating peoples. That we are granting them democracy. Is this really the case? Who brought democracy to us? On a purely historic basis, it was more the people of this nation who desired freedom from the oppression that allowed the revolution to take place than anything else.
So, what should we do if we wish to help those in oppressed nations? Do we try to give them democracy? I think that the present situation in Iraq should answer with a resounding "NO!" that this is a bad idea. If we want people to enjoy freedom, we have no right to imose it on them. Yes, one might argue that this was the case with the American Civil War, but I can assure you it is not. Slaves would escape to the Northern states for freedom. All would have done so if it were not for punishments incurred by slave owners. The Civil War also only changed one law. The North did not try to impose completely new governments on the South (though it did try to reunify them with the Union). The North didn't change the governmental system and try to impose new leaders.
Consider also the Quakers. These people are an exemplary instance of how one can be a Pacifist and still enact change. Quakers helped end the slave trade by civil disobedience. Instead of fighting in the war, they refused to purchase goods made by the labor of slaves.
There are a miriad of instances where Christianity has been shown to bring about good without violent means. Consider Mother Theresa's efforts, Martin Luther King Jr, St Stephen the Martyr, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, etc.
How can we call ourselves Christians if we are not willing to "turn the other cheek?"
Why is that? Since when does being a follower of Christ mean taking arms against others. The early Christians were willing to die for their beliefs. Many were submitted to savage punishments, such as crucifixion, and being part of the gladiatorial games. Origen of Alexandria, when his father was arrested for being a Christian, would have gladly turned himself in were it not for the fact that his mother hid his clothing and he would not run out naked (thank God for that!).
Today, though, one sees on the back of cars bumper stickers that proclaim the driver's undying faith in God, complete loyalty to the country and support of our wars.
Can being a Christian be reconcilable with supporting violence?
Many argue that we are liberating peoples. That we are granting them democracy. Is this really the case? Who brought democracy to us? On a purely historic basis, it was more the people of this nation who desired freedom from the oppression that allowed the revolution to take place than anything else.
So, what should we do if we wish to help those in oppressed nations? Do we try to give them democracy? I think that the present situation in Iraq should answer with a resounding "NO!" that this is a bad idea. If we want people to enjoy freedom, we have no right to imose it on them. Yes, one might argue that this was the case with the American Civil War, but I can assure you it is not. Slaves would escape to the Northern states for freedom. All would have done so if it were not for punishments incurred by slave owners. The Civil War also only changed one law. The North did not try to impose completely new governments on the South (though it did try to reunify them with the Union). The North didn't change the governmental system and try to impose new leaders.
Consider also the Quakers. These people are an exemplary instance of how one can be a Pacifist and still enact change. Quakers helped end the slave trade by civil disobedience. Instead of fighting in the war, they refused to purchase goods made by the labor of slaves.
There are a miriad of instances where Christianity has been shown to bring about good without violent means. Consider Mother Theresa's efforts, Martin Luther King Jr, St Stephen the Martyr, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, etc.
How can we call ourselves Christians if we are not willing to "turn the other cheek?"
Sunday, May 10, 2009
By the Grace of God
So today I was contemplating after Mass whether or not it is that everybody is accountable for what they do. Biologists and Psychologists suggest that there's a lot that we do that we have no control over. Some people believe in fate, and all Christian believers posit God as omniscient, knowing exactly what we're going to do.
For this reason I was once told that the only true prayer that we can pray is "Fiat voluntas tuas" (Thy will be done). If this is the truth, the only answer, is there hope for us?
To return to the first question, one must consider those who might be argued to not be accountable. Among these are the mentally unstable, the mentally handicapped, and young children. If we suggest this, then, what separates somebody who is accountable from somebody who isn't? Is there some kind of defining moment when we become accountable or some stack of characteristics? Whenever I made trouble for myself as a child, my parents always said, "You should know better." So was I more accountable than others who might have done the same things?
Ultimately, I believe we are accountable to God. Yes, we have laws and legal systems to ensure people's safety and the well-being of society. However, they are flawed, and unless there truly is no justice in the world, the only person we are must answer to for all that we do is the ultimate power over all the universe.
So what about those that seem as if they are unable to actually do what they should? What about those who seem utterly helpless and irresponsible? Well, my belief is that they indeed are accountable. No man is completely innocent of all faults. No human being by his or herself is able to overcome all vices and sins. Sometimes what we need to do is ask for help.
So, it is my firm belief that for those who feel that they are helpless, there is indeed help. For those who feel irresponsible and unable to enact change, there is a source they can turn to for guidance. Sometimes it takes prayer, and sometimes it takes asking for help from fellow human beings.
However, above all, one cannot change his or her ways unless he or she is willing to forsake what it is that impedes them. If we make no conscious effort ourselves, we can do nothing. So, when we pray "Thy Will be done" we must remember that we ourselves are willing God's will. We are showing our own desire to be what God wills us to be. If we refuse to change, we cannot, with any truthfulness, ask anything of God.
For this reason I was once told that the only true prayer that we can pray is "Fiat voluntas tuas" (Thy will be done). If this is the truth, the only answer, is there hope for us?
To return to the first question, one must consider those who might be argued to not be accountable. Among these are the mentally unstable, the mentally handicapped, and young children. If we suggest this, then, what separates somebody who is accountable from somebody who isn't? Is there some kind of defining moment when we become accountable or some stack of characteristics? Whenever I made trouble for myself as a child, my parents always said, "You should know better." So was I more accountable than others who might have done the same things?
Ultimately, I believe we are accountable to God. Yes, we have laws and legal systems to ensure people's safety and the well-being of society. However, they are flawed, and unless there truly is no justice in the world, the only person we are must answer to for all that we do is the ultimate power over all the universe.
So what about those that seem as if they are unable to actually do what they should? What about those who seem utterly helpless and irresponsible? Well, my belief is that they indeed are accountable. No man is completely innocent of all faults. No human being by his or herself is able to overcome all vices and sins. Sometimes what we need to do is ask for help.
So, it is my firm belief that for those who feel that they are helpless, there is indeed help. For those who feel irresponsible and unable to enact change, there is a source they can turn to for guidance. Sometimes it takes prayer, and sometimes it takes asking for help from fellow human beings.
However, above all, one cannot change his or her ways unless he or she is willing to forsake what it is that impedes them. If we make no conscious effort ourselves, we can do nothing. So, when we pray "Thy Will be done" we must remember that we ourselves are willing God's will. We are showing our own desire to be what God wills us to be. If we refuse to change, we cannot, with any truthfulness, ask anything of God.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Odium et Caritas
It seems to me that when the Beatles sang "All you need is love," and Jackie DeShannon sang "What the world needs now is love" they were correct. How much hate is there in the world? How much fighting and bickering?
Recently, I've attracted more attention than I should because of my baptism and a letter to school newspaper about why we should invite Obama to the campus. The responses I've received have been diverse. Some people have praised what I've said. Others have condemned it. Others yet, have taken what I've said and contorted my words to make me say things that I have never said.
There are two interactions I have had with people that have had strong impacts on me personally. The first was an interaction on the Indy Star blog with a man who goes by the moniker "Roymondo." He exhibited a lot of anger and hostility to my conversion to Catholicism. Every chance he got, he tried to enlighten the world with what he thought to be the true reason why I converted. I was personally offended, but mostly I felt sad for him not being able to understand that I would truly convert out of a genuine movement of mysoul.
The second was with a friend of mine whom I shall call Steve for the sake of this post. He personally contacted me after reading my Observer post. He didn't respond with a whitty letter to the editor explaining why I loved abortion and hated God or anything of that nature. Rather, he advised me on staying true to the tenets of Catholicism and exercising obedience to the council of the bishops. After each message to me, he concluded with "With love" or "In the love of Christ." He never condemned me nor did he tell me that I was completely wrong. But he did warn me and tried to guide me.
The example of Steve is an example to me of truly Christ-like love. Roymondo's example is the opposite. There tends to be a fine line between Christ-like admonition and self-righteous condemnation. Sometimes the difference is obvious to those outside, though. Nobody on the Notre Dame campus views the actions of Randall Terry and the Center for BioEthics to be in Christ-like love. But to think that there are no people protesting Obama's invitation here who have no love in their intention is not only false, but an affront to those who respectfully and graciously demonstrate their feelings.
The real question we must ask is this: How do we show our distaste for something without exuding a condemnatory attitude? How can we respectfully display our disagreement? How do we know which battles are worth fighting?
I would suggest that Christ's counsel here is very applicable "Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison." (Matthew 5:25)
Recently, I've attracted more attention than I should because of my baptism and a letter to school newspaper about why we should invite Obama to the campus. The responses I've received have been diverse. Some people have praised what I've said. Others have condemned it. Others yet, have taken what I've said and contorted my words to make me say things that I have never said.
There are two interactions I have had with people that have had strong impacts on me personally. The first was an interaction on the Indy Star blog with a man who goes by the moniker "Roymondo." He exhibited a lot of anger and hostility to my conversion to Catholicism. Every chance he got, he tried to enlighten the world with what he thought to be the true reason why I converted. I was personally offended, but mostly I felt sad for him not being able to understand that I would truly convert out of a genuine movement of mysoul.
The second was with a friend of mine whom I shall call Steve for the sake of this post. He personally contacted me after reading my Observer post. He didn't respond with a whitty letter to the editor explaining why I loved abortion and hated God or anything of that nature. Rather, he advised me on staying true to the tenets of Catholicism and exercising obedience to the council of the bishops. After each message to me, he concluded with "With love" or "In the love of Christ." He never condemned me nor did he tell me that I was completely wrong. But he did warn me and tried to guide me.
The example of Steve is an example to me of truly Christ-like love. Roymondo's example is the opposite. There tends to be a fine line between Christ-like admonition and self-righteous condemnation. Sometimes the difference is obvious to those outside, though. Nobody on the Notre Dame campus views the actions of Randall Terry and the Center for BioEthics to be in Christ-like love. But to think that there are no people protesting Obama's invitation here who have no love in their intention is not only false, but an affront to those who respectfully and graciously demonstrate their feelings.
The real question we must ask is this: How do we show our distaste for something without exuding a condemnatory attitude? How can we respectfully display our disagreement? How do we know which battles are worth fighting?
I would suggest that Christ's counsel here is very applicable "Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison." (Matthew 5:25)
Saturday, May 2, 2009
fides contra rationem
I really need a better title than that. But I couldn't think of anything. This semester I am in a philosophy class centered on theological claims. A lot of what we have been learning and studying focuses on proofs for the existence of God.
I have a really hard time accepting the proofs given. It's not that I doubt the intellectual capacity of people like Anselm, Aquinas, Kierkegaard, Averroes, Avicenna, and others. It's more that I don't think that philosophy has any say in religious conviction. Yes, we can use the philosophy of Aristotle, Mills, Kant, or Nietzsche to tell us by what standards to live. Yes, we can use Plato, Nietzsche, Saint-Exupery or MacIntyre to tell us what we should esteem. But I don't think that the existence of God has any place in philosophy.
Yes, we can speak of religious things. We refer to "Christian virtues." We speak of "the way," being "disciples of Christ," and of our teleological value. But we can only discuss this in light of our belief, a belief which does not come from philosophy.
If God were provable, then faith, one of the three Christian virtues, would be null and void. If we could take Kant's model, or Aquinas' proofs, or Anselm's definition of God as a concrete way to show God's existence, then there would be no requirement for faith. How can we esteem faith, if faith isn't even necessary. How can we be Kierkegaard's knight of faith when there is no place for faith?
Long have theologians argued about the place of faith. St Paul tells us that we are saved through our faith in Christ. James responds that faith without works is dead. The argument gets taken up again in the Reformation period with figures such as Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and the entire Roman Church.
So how can we say that we can prove God exists? Pascal only tells us that it's better statistically to believe in God. Most theologians tell us to have faith in God. Even those arguing about the proofs of God are only arguing that they can prove why it makes sense to believe in God. God is not provable. If God were, then there would be no struggle, no faith requirement or trials to overcome. If God is a logical deduction, there are no atheists.
Even so, God provides us with enough to make it reasonable to believe in God, and also reasonable not to. The beauties that surround us and are right in front of our eyes are seen by some to be infallible proof for God's love, and by others as the beauty of chaos. Our minds and bodies prove to some that God exists and to others that natural selection favors certain traits. Even our history and progress shows to some that God has been there, and to others that nature's laws are above all others.
I have a really hard time accepting the proofs given. It's not that I doubt the intellectual capacity of people like Anselm, Aquinas, Kierkegaard, Averroes, Avicenna, and others. It's more that I don't think that philosophy has any say in religious conviction. Yes, we can use the philosophy of Aristotle, Mills, Kant, or Nietzsche to tell us by what standards to live. Yes, we can use Plato, Nietzsche, Saint-Exupery or MacIntyre to tell us what we should esteem. But I don't think that the existence of God has any place in philosophy.
Yes, we can speak of religious things. We refer to "Christian virtues." We speak of "the way," being "disciples of Christ," and of our teleological value. But we can only discuss this in light of our belief, a belief which does not come from philosophy.
If God were provable, then faith, one of the three Christian virtues, would be null and void. If we could take Kant's model, or Aquinas' proofs, or Anselm's definition of God as a concrete way to show God's existence, then there would be no requirement for faith. How can we esteem faith, if faith isn't even necessary. How can we be Kierkegaard's knight of faith when there is no place for faith?
Long have theologians argued about the place of faith. St Paul tells us that we are saved through our faith in Christ. James responds that faith without works is dead. The argument gets taken up again in the Reformation period with figures such as Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and the entire Roman Church.
So how can we say that we can prove God exists? Pascal only tells us that it's better statistically to believe in God. Most theologians tell us to have faith in God. Even those arguing about the proofs of God are only arguing that they can prove why it makes sense to believe in God. God is not provable. If God were, then there would be no struggle, no faith requirement or trials to overcome. If God is a logical deduction, there are no atheists.
Even so, God provides us with enough to make it reasonable to believe in God, and also reasonable not to. The beauties that surround us and are right in front of our eyes are seen by some to be infallible proof for God's love, and by others as the beauty of chaos. Our minds and bodies prove to some that God exists and to others that natural selection favors certain traits. Even our history and progress shows to some that God has been there, and to others that nature's laws are above all others.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
