Wednesday, November 02, 2005

Moral Schizophrenics

I think Coldplay is an awesome group. Their new album X & Y is terrific. I was telling a “church” person about my musical tastes and they said, “I don’t listen to secular music … (supply your own self-righteous tone here) … I only listen to Christian music.”

A person’s worldview matters. It matters because it colors and frames everything we perceive about life. The classic church worldview is to classify everything into either sacred (church=good) or secular (world=not good) categories, judging every experience of life as valuable or harmful.

So, being a good church-person I will listen to Christian music. I will read Christian books. I will attend Christian seminars. I will acquire Christian art. I will have Christian friends. I will frequent Christian establishments. I will sport a Christian bumper sticker. I will vote for Christian candidates. I will wear Christian t-shirts. I will support Christian values. I will argue for Christian morality. In short, I will live in the ghetto of the Christian sub-culture and feel secure knowing that I’m on the sacred side of life.

So … U2’s off limits … but what about some Christmas music, like Jingle Bells, is that okay? And CSI is good television; can’t we include that? The Gap has some cool threads, no fish symbols emblazoned on them, but maybe we can wear some Gap stuff, too. I know that I can’t like Harry Potter, but are the Disney classics with witches and magic okay? Surely, there is some redeeming value in rooting for my team to crush their opponents? These don’t fit neatly into the sacred group, but can’t we squeeze them in somehow?

My mind is spinning! What about my business? Where does school fit? Or sports? Or parties? Or mountain climbing? Or the arts? Or orgasms? Hmmm … where does sex fit on the sacred/secular continuum?

Instead of allowing his followers to be moral schizophrenics, God gave us some very simple advice …

Since everything God created is good, we should not reject any of it. We may receive it gladly, with thankful hearts. (1 Timothy 4:4)

Could it be that easy? Emphatically, yes! Everything God created is good. We shouldn’t reject any of it. We should receive it gladly and thankfully. The sacred/secular mindset is a perversion of God’s generous gifts to humanity. In the desire to keep away from evil, people have quenched the possibility for pleasure through many of the forms that God intended.

I can hear someone’s moral worldview beginning to crack, and nervously they ask, “If the sacred/secular contention isn’t true, then how can I know what is good and what is evil?”

Consider this by C. S. Lewis …

There is but one good; that is God. Everything else is good when it looks to him and bad when it turns from him. (C. S. Lewis, The Great Divorce)

The issue is not the song, not the art, not the movie, not the clothes, not anything in the categories of sacred or secular. What matters is my motive. Why am I doing what I am doing? For what purpose and to what end?

Theologian Martin Buber said,

What matters is not what is being done, but the fact that every act is filled with sanctity—that is, with God-oriented intent. There is nothing that is evil in itself; every passion can become a virtue, every inclination a “vehicle of God.” It is not the matter of the act that is decisive, but its sanctification. Every act is hallowed if it is directed towards salvation. The soul of the doer alone determines the character of the deed. (Martin Buber, Mamre)

There is a sacred and secular, and here is how you find it: To the person who lives their lives with a God-conscious worldview everything is sacred or can be turned that way. To a person who lives their lives with a self-conscious worldview, everything is secular, because the world revolves around them instead of God.

19 comments:

Clint said...

So everything is permissible as long as it doesn't directly break a biblical command or a government law?

Clint said...

So if I'm understanding you correctly, you're proposing a relative morality based on individual conscience?

That seems awfully chaotic and scary.

musing said...

First, a disclaimer: This blog is about being a believer in Jesus in the 21st century. Therefore, the question of what is permissible is an important one. I'm not advocating moral relativism ... because as one seeking to follow Christ I am bound to try to discover what he wants me to do.

So, to answer clint, there are clear commands given in the Christian Scriptures that are very plain. We should try to live by them. BUT, the Bible doesn't speak to an enormous amount of things that we deal with everyday. In those instances, we are free to act according to the best that is in us. That may be subjective, but I believe the Bible is intentionally silent on many matters so that we will wrestle within ourselves to come up with our (not necessarily everyone else's) best answer instead of mindlessly following either our base impulses or our fixed "traditions."

Add to this the importance of surrounding yourself with people who are searching for the beauty in everything, and I think you have a pretty good Christian ethic.

musing said...

Great thoughts, enderc. I can't answer them immediately, but I did want to say, no apologies necessary, and WELCOME. Your thoughts on these matters are appreciated and valued. I will give some thought to what you have posted and get back as soon as I can. I hope others will interact with what you've written as well.

Clint said...

Jesus said something very similar in Mark 12:28-31.

enderc, where do you propose the guidelines for human morality come from? A supernatural source or somewhere more humanistic?

musing said...

I'll try to take a stab at the first question that enderc poses: namely, are there any commands other than be cool to yourself and to other people. Yes, one more, to use your term, be cool to God. I do not think we can deny the spiritual essence of our being. You could argue that our spirituality should go under "be cool to yourself", and I suppose that would work. However, I think God deserves his own "be cool" statement! :-) We cannot be true to our ourselves or others if we deny what is essential to our humanity, our quest ... search ... longing ... for that which is above and beyond us, and yet within our grasp. The search for the divine in all of us (to quote Raiders of the Ark, the Last Crusade). I believe that is why Jesus made the statement that the greatest commands were: 1)love God, 2) love other people, 3) love yourself (as Clint so rightly pointed out earlier). I would take these statements as the very basis of human morality, and as a believer, use them as a basis for developing my own Christian worldview.

musing said...

If people could live by the two commands you suggest, it seems like that would be utopia indeed. But, since that has never been even a remote possibility in human history, it remains a very hypothetical statement, indeed. Not that it isn't a worthy goal, though.

In fact, your longing for the world to be this way is the reason that Jesus Christ came to the earth, because he created a deep seated desire in us to fulfill your "cool" statements but we were miserable failures. That's why I would add our spirituality to your list. The point of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection was to give people the power to live their lives in the exact manner you suggest. He is the fulfillment of the be cool ethic.

While many other religions preach these basic principles, none offers the hope of the resurrection, the hope that says God is in us ... helping us, so that when we fail ... and fail we will ... he offers us the hope that he will make it right ... with him, with others, and with ourselves.

musing said...

Why label your spirituality? The early Christians didn't label themselves, they were labeled because the life they lived mimiked the life of Jesus.

I think it is helpful to talk about your spirituality in terms of your presuppositions. Everyone has them, some acknowledge them and some don't. I personally don't like the term "Christian," not because it is a bad term per se, but because of all the baggage that it has accumulated over the years makes it an almost meaningless term. I much prefer to be known as a seeker after Jesus, because that is a much better description of my spirituality.

My presupposition is that the story of Jesus is true. I have found the Bible to be trustworthy at those times when I've tested it. When the bottom fell out of my life my faith sustained me. When I take the message of Jesus and I examine the possibilities of the world that belief in him could create, I'm convinced that it is THE message to save humanity from the horrors of our baser nature. You should know this about me because it informs, shapes, and colors every thought, action, and attitude that I possess.

So, while I don't like labels, knowing what a persons presuppositions are is helpful for dialogue. Meaningful conversations are difficult if I am unaware that I'm talking to someone with Muslim presuppositions, or Buddist, or someone with unspecified spiritual sepculations. I shouldn't let those presuppositions lead me to mindless judgments or irrational prejudices which is so often the case. I should use them to understand the other person and be sensitive to their worldview as we reason and dialogue.

Instead of thinking in terms of "labeling" which leads to categorizing and separating that maximizes our differences, we should think in terms of personal presuppositions leading us to open conversations, free expression, and hopefully a more fully developed--and informed--humanity.

musing said...

Regarding "commands" ... I agree, you can't codify these concepts into legalese. The word, like many other words, has come to have a negative connotation. That may be one of the interesting things about blogging, we should always try to get to the precise meaning of words.

I write commands to mean an authoritative instruction. That is, a certain direction for doing something that comes from one who has the right to give such direction. In my life, God has more than proven that he is capable of giving me the proper direction. Relying solely on my own cognizance and experience is often limited, leading to mistakes that could be bypassed if I would have taken counsel offered from a more seasoned source. For me, God, through the Christian Scriptures, is that source.

musing said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
musing said...

4 scenarios … my presuppositions begin with the Christian scripture, and Jesus’ statement that he is the only way to God (John 14:6).

1. God has revealed himself in the natural world (Romans 1:20) and he has enlightened our conscience (Romans 2:15) so that we can know him. Whatever his religious expression, if he lived his life seeking to know that God (Hebrews 11:6) who can be known and wants to be known and sought to live his life according to the dictates of his conscience that had been enlightened by God, then it seems that God would most certainly grant him a place in his heaven. Not because of any righteousness that he had attained, but because of his faith (Galatians 3:6).

2. In scenario 2, will John go to heaven? If so, it will be by God’s grace. The Apostle Paul preached in Athens to people who were worshipping a God they didn’t know (Acts 17:22-33). I think that Godly people of different faith views are worshipping a God they don’t know, and God seeks to reveal himself to them. If they follow the same faith path as scenario 1, then I would come to the same conclusion.

3. In scenario 3, it wouldn’t matter what he converted to, the question would still be is his life moving in the direction described in my answer to scenario 1. But if he becomes a believer, then he understands the object of his faith (Jesus) instead of only understanding his faith through the natural world and conscience. If he has truly come to believe that Christ is the fullest expression of God in this world, then he has progressed in his faith. He can more fully understand the love of God in Christ Jesus, he can know how relieving it is to be free from a guilty conscience, and he can enjoy the freedom of living a life of grace. He can come to know God personally (John 4:4-26), instead of only knowing God by hearsay.

4. Scenario 4 presents a problem. To imply that he would have accepted Jesus and been “saved” is to say that being saved is a one moment experience. Faith isn’t that static, concrete, or fixed. It is much more fluid than that. Human experience and the practice of faith through the centuries indicate that we grow in our faith and understanding. While the revivalists of the past century made faith a “moment of decision” the Bible indicates that it is more of a process (Read John 11:1-44 and notice especially v. 15. Jesus says that Lazarus’ death was another opportunity for belief). How much faith does it take to become a believer? Not much. When does insipient faith become believing faith? I don’t know. What I do know is that when a person begins the journey of faith, that faith is counted as righteousness.

I believe that Christians (and others) do a huge disservice when they try to determine “who’s in” and “who’s out.” I’ll leave that to God. Ultimately, anyone who gets in will get in on the basis of Christ’s life, death, and resurrection. He is the epicenter of God’s redeeming grace and unconditional love. Whether one is aware of it or not, hope … and heaven … ultimately reside in him (Acts 4:12).

Clint said...

Does John 14:6 put a wrinkle in the first two 'John' scenarios?

"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." KJV

musing said...

How does John 14:6 play into these scenarios? In the passage, Jesus is telling his disciples that he is going to the Father and he is preparing a place for them to be with the Father as well. They want to know how to get there. He tells them that he is the way to the Father … in fact, since they’ve seen him, they have seen the Father. The whole passage is Jesus assuring them that they will get to the Father because he has made the way possible.

With that kind of understanding, does it make sense to interpret the passage as “I am the only way, you can’t get there, unless you go through me.”? Or does it make more sense to interpret the passage, “I have cleared the way to get to the Father … the pathway to Him passes through me.”?

My Short Theory of Atonement (with the emphasis on my): God’s sacrifice of himself in Christ Jesus on our behalf is the basis for his unlimited grace. Therefore, any hope of eternity passes through him.

So, John 14:6 applies to Scenario 1 this way … if John sincerely sought to know God based on the “light” that was within him and expressed in the world around him, that search would be the basis on which God would apply the sufficient sacrifice of Jesus Christ to him and declare him righteous (So, you see, it is impossible to please God without faith. Anyone who wants to come to him must believe that there is a God and that he rewards those who sincerely seek him. Hebrews 11:6).

In Scenario 2, I am assuming that John rejects the religions, but continues his sincere search for the God who wants to be and can be known. With that assumption I would give the same answer as Scenario 1. However, if we assume that in Scenario 2 God has more fully revealed himself in Jesus Christ and John rejected him and not just religions, that would change things, because if John were sincerely seeking to know this true God, he would recognize him in Jesus. How can one be sincerely seeking to know God and then reject the one who is God? If John rejects God revealed in Jesus Christ, who is the way to, and the very expression of, the one true God, then from a human viewpoint, John has a problem. Is he in or out? I’ll leave that up to God.

Clint said...

I like you, enderc. Very well written comment. I especially enjoyed the "Battlefield Earth" reference.

I applaud your skepticism and desire for a logical spirituality. I think the two can coexist, though they may tussle from time to time. Your current spiritual state is genuine and reasoned, something that many churchpew fillers lack.

I recommend doing serious study. I think the decision is weighty enough to be worth it. I believe you'll find that there is real truth to be found in a lot of the world's oldest faiths. I believe that the truth comes to ultimate fruition in the Bible through Jesus of Nazareth. I continually test my faith and believe it can stand up to the test more than Xenu's spawn.

Perhaps this blog can be the start of your discovery process. I'd certainly enjoy riding passenger-- I have a lot to learn myself.

musing said...

Thoughtful ramblings, enderc. It is impossible to think without presuppositions, which are, by nature, the opinions we posit which we have come to believe as the truth but which cannot be objectively verified (except in the case of Xenu). Because of that, I would also feel uncomfortable telling anyone that their presuppositions are wrong. However, given the opportunity, I would gladly enter into a conversation and try to explain why I believe my belief system is the fulfillment of what they are searching for.

For instance, I would address your skeptical presuppositions by looking at your analogy of the “Leap of Faith.” I am not an expert in every World Religion, but from what I do know there is a difference between Jesus and everyone else on the cliff. As I understand it, every other World Religion requires something of its adherents in order to be “worthy” of reaching heaven, nirvana, karma, etc.

So, maybe a better analogy for these world religions would be to start at the bottom of a cliff that is so high you can’t possibly see the top, and each person trying to get to the top. Each one of the leaders of the World Religions would be there to educate, elucidate, threaten, and inspire their adherents. However, no matter how they try, they simply can’t reach the top on their own.

Jesus on the other hand, climbs to the top himself, then throws a rope down, asks us to hold on, and he pulls us up.

The more I know of myself, and my inability to keep even the simplest moral code, reinforces my presupposition that any belief system where I am the major player in the cosmic contest of good vs. evil, can’t be a good one! The only way that good will ultimately triumph in our world, and in my life, is if I have lots of help in the process. You see, I want “to be cool” to myself and to others, but I often lack the will to carry it out. I want to do good, but more times than I’d like to admit, I do evil instead. I don’t need another moral roadmap … set of instructions … ethical teachings … I can’t live up to what I know as it is! I can’t reason my way toward “coolness.” What I need is help to overcome that part of me that is so inclined to do the very opposite of what I know I want to do. Jesus Christ offers me that inner strength. And the more I know of him, the more I am encouraged to live beyond my baser instincts and live for others … joining him in seeking to make this place a whole lot “cooler.”

Clint said...

The benefit of enderc's top-of-cliff analogy is that it demonstrates the deadly ramifications if you're wrong.

Clint said...

Thanks for letting me ride along, enderC. To quote the late Mitch Hedberg:

I want to be a race car passenger; just a guy who bugs the driver. "Say man, can I turn on the radio? You should slow down. Can I stick my feet out the window? Why do we gotta keep going in circles? Man, you really like Tide ..."

-------------------

I'm fairly certain musing wasn't suggesting someone accept a religious creed based solely on it being the easiest to follow. I'll let him defend his position himself, but I'm not sure I could easily say that Christianity is the easiest religion, either-- as if it's even measurable.

The main difference between Christianity and the majority of the other faiths, and this is likely what musing was trying to emphasize, is that you do not earn your way into heaven in the Christian faith. In other religions you must serve and work to earn your eternal rewards. The quality and quantity of work that you do will be directly related to how much bling you get in the hereafter.

On the surface this makes total sense; it's as if a human made it up, since that's how it usually works while we're on earth. Some people are attracted to a "works" based religion, as it makes them feel like the end result will be real and worthwhile if they put some of their own elbow-grease into it.

In Christianity, it's flipped. The first time we screw up, we're basically doomed. There is no amount of grovelling, sweating, or greasy elbows that can save you. We're all destined for death.

However. God has seen fit to forgive us and provide a replacement so that we don't have to die. Christ lived a perfect life and wass murdered in our place. That's our bloody and merciful pass.

God doesn't require us to do any grueling work to be accepted because there isn't anything good enough that we can do.

Now if I were making up a religion, I'd likely make up one that hands out a list of do's and dont's. Curiously, Christianity is contrastingly different than something I would think up.

So your analogy is certainly thought-provoking, but I'd spin it this way:

Why/how is this one brand of brake pads so much different than its higher priced competitors?

Sure wish I was more eloquent, but I hope you get the general idea. Feel free to burn holes in my brake pad analogy until you hear the metal squealing. I enjoy a thoughtful challenge. Look forward to your response.

musing said...

enderc, I really appreciate your honesty and your thoughtfulness. Thanks clint for trying to clarify my less than clear statements.

I don't know if you remember Star Wars, The Empire Strikes Back, but there is a scene where Yoda is telling Luke Skywalker that Darth Vader was his father. In the dialogue, Yoda said, "So you see, what I told you was true, from a certain point of view." To say that Christianity is totally faith-based (as I tried to do, and clint did so well) is to tell you about Christianity from a certain point of view. As the post by Hammond points out, there are honest and sincere people who believe in the Christian faith who would say I'm damned for telling you that you don't have to "do" anything to get in.

However, it seems to me that our human penchant for rules-making, rules-breaking, rules-revising (so I can keep them better) and then rules-judging (because others don't keep the rules I feel are important) is antithetical to the very message that Christ Jesus came to deliver. If it's about rules, then why didn't Jesus come and lay down the law? Instead he came and laid down his life ... why? To show us that a relationship with God isn't based on the rules ... but on His sacrificial love.

Your double skepticism is understandable ... works religion can be overwhelmingly confusing and depressing. I hope your skepticism keeps you far away from it in any form.

And I hope your skepticism continues to "bug" you, as things continue to "bug" me. It's that "bugging feeling" that continues to prod us further along the pathway of knowing. I believe it is actually part of God's plan.

Unknown said...

Excellent reflection! I often remember how Francis Schaeffer seemed to make it a point to be a student of the world in which he ministered, even though he considered Improv Jazz to be the greatest sign of Western Decay! Or Bob Jones, having met C.S. Lewis, and walking away rather shaken: "I don't understand it!" sez he, "He smokes, and he drinks, but he's a Christian!"