Patrick Henry once yelled, “Give me liberty or give me death!” That being the case, we may as well die because liberty doesn’t exist. Even if we threw off all external constraints and had hold of every right for all we were worth, then we would be nothing more than slaves to our rights. Humans are slaves, nothing more. The only option we have is to whom we choose to enslave ourselves. If liberty is defined as the freedom of choice, then the world’s liberty is utter independence, the ability to do whatever one wants whenever one wants to do so. Christian liberty is submission to God, one does what He says when He says to do so. Both kinds of liberty are a type of slavery; the true question is which one gives liberty inside this slavery.
Slavery to self seems like the freest choice. If a man can dictate what he wants and when he wants it, then he is essentially in control of his life. How glorious it would be to have the liberty to seek after whatever pleasure one desires, to be free from tyrannical constraints and have the complete freedom to pursue happiness. Sadly, this type of freedom only brings further enslavement, since that man is unable to submit or do anything he does not please. Unable to lay down the very things he sought so hard after, he is now a slave to them and in seeking his ‘liberties’ loses all happiness.
Yet, can slavery to God be any better? At least with slavery to self, the man got to choose what made him miserable. When enslaved to God, he does not appear to even have that choice. God, with His complex rules and regulations, so limits what he could do there seems to be no freedom of choice at all. Though this is how the world seems to view God’s slavery, it is not quite the case. God demands that the man does what would bring honor to Him. This single rule allows him the freedom that he did not have when enslaved to himself. Since the source of slavery is now outside the self, the man can choose what course of action to take to appease the master. He can have his rights when appropriate, but most importantly, he can give them up. He has the freedom to say yes and to say no. With his only consideration being to bring honor to his master, the man has perfect liberty to do what seems best in a situation, giving him greater freedom of choice.
Of course, there is still the issue of the many rules that God has in place. While this is true, the rules are in place not to enslave the world, but to keep the world from enslaving itself. When man was seeks after pleasures of self, he enslaves himself to these pleasures. Contrarily, God’s rules allow humans to find liberty. For example, God’s command not to lie gives greater freedom since lying only traps a person in a web of deceit that perpetuates itself in every attempt to keep from being discovered. The liar is never able to lay down lying, he is enslaved to it. Once a man begins to participate in what God declares as sin, it is nearly impossible to stop and once again, that person is in slavery to his own wants and desires. God is a better master than self, since men seek what they think is good for themselves and end up enslaved to false goods. God seeks what is truly good for them, and gives them what is truly good.
The world does not see God as freedom, for its desire is to serve itself. This is not possible, for this only brings slavery to whatever false good it decides to chase. When serving God, humanity has true freedom of choice. If one thinks it is more honoring to take up his rights he should do so, with all the might and bravado of a full out Revolution. However, if it is more honoring to God to lay them down, he can do so with joy. The things the self seeks after with it’s ‘liberty’ do nothing more than enslave it, since it has no ability to lay them back down. Simply ask any addict. In humanity’s slavery to Christ, we are not enslaved to any right or privilege, but we are in control to use them as life and God demands. This, then, is really freedom, the power to take when it is time to take and to let go when it is time to let go.
Monday, November 17, 2008
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Lessons Learned from Hat Chasing
I wrote a script about dignity and chasing hats. This is the narration from it. If I can figure out how to post the whole script I may later.
It is said that there are two types of people in this world - those who are silly and those who are certainly not. By silly, of course, they mean undignified, and most undoubtedly all people who say such things would, by necessity, fall into this latter category. Keeping dignity is then, of course, considered to be the most important aspect of life. However, in truth, there really cannot be anything quite so comic as a man attempting at all costs to keep his dignity. For however hard one tries, dignity is quite a difficult thing to keep hold of. It is commonly believed that comic behavior is to be avoided. Putting oneself out is simply not done, for do to so would be quite humiliating. There could never be any pursuit so great or so rewarding as to merit such an undignified display. And yet, man is a comic creature.
Most of what he does is all the more comic for trying to appear not so. But what is dignity really, other than something that is deserving of honor or respect? Perhaps, then, dignity is not an absence of silliness at all and it is the men of dignity that understand it the least. Then again, dignity can guard us against the disappointment of misfortune by giving us the consolation that at least we never made a fool of ourselves...never put ourselves out too far. Yet maybe, just maybe, misfortune is only an adventure not properly regarded. And all it takes is the proper feeling to fully embrace and experience the adventure that is placed before us. In embracing the adventure, we realize that what we thought was dignity was the true silliness and it is only by the complete striping of dignity that one can hope to find it. Only by holding a gun to the head of propriety can you learn to laugh in appreciation of the new life that is gained. For what could be more worthy of honor or respect than completely forsaking all restraints of “proper” behavior and throwing back your head in laughter at the joy of living life fully or forgetting all the sorrows that hold you to the ground and allowing the joy of a forgotten childhood to sweep through your body. What can hold more honor than seeking what you love with such abandon that you would be willing to reach out beyond all confines of safety to grasp what you desire? To rightly consider the adventure...and never again feel it a misfortune? This then, truly is dignity, and what a silly thing it is.
It is said that there are two types of people in this world - those who are silly and those who are certainly not. By silly, of course, they mean undignified, and most undoubtedly all people who say such things would, by necessity, fall into this latter category. Keeping dignity is then, of course, considered to be the most important aspect of life. However, in truth, there really cannot be anything quite so comic as a man attempting at all costs to keep his dignity. For however hard one tries, dignity is quite a difficult thing to keep hold of. It is commonly believed that comic behavior is to be avoided. Putting oneself out is simply not done, for do to so would be quite humiliating. There could never be any pursuit so great or so rewarding as to merit such an undignified display. And yet, man is a comic creature.
Most of what he does is all the more comic for trying to appear not so. But what is dignity really, other than something that is deserving of honor or respect? Perhaps, then, dignity is not an absence of silliness at all and it is the men of dignity that understand it the least. Then again, dignity can guard us against the disappointment of misfortune by giving us the consolation that at least we never made a fool of ourselves...never put ourselves out too far. Yet maybe, just maybe, misfortune is only an adventure not properly regarded. And all it takes is the proper feeling to fully embrace and experience the adventure that is placed before us. In embracing the adventure, we realize that what we thought was dignity was the true silliness and it is only by the complete striping of dignity that one can hope to find it. Only by holding a gun to the head of propriety can you learn to laugh in appreciation of the new life that is gained. For what could be more worthy of honor or respect than completely forsaking all restraints of “proper” behavior and throwing back your head in laughter at the joy of living life fully or forgetting all the sorrows that hold you to the ground and allowing the joy of a forgotten childhood to sweep through your body. What can hold more honor than seeking what you love with such abandon that you would be willing to reach out beyond all confines of safety to grasp what you desire? To rightly consider the adventure...and never again feel it a misfortune? This then, truly is dignity, and what a silly thing it is.
Saturday, May 24, 2008
A Reasonable Redemption
My paper for this semester's worth of Torrey about the argument that people can become Christians by following reason. Read and comment if you are interested. :)
A Reasonable Redemption:
Christianity and the Logos in The First and Second Apologies of Justin Martyr
The role of the logos in Justin Martyr’s First and Second Apologies creates a radical conflict that is still affecting the Church today. According to Justin Martyr, if men and women live by reason they are essentially living with the logos and therefore must be called Christians, a label suggesting they are therefore saved by reason. However, he also says that salvation comes through the redemption of Christ’s crucifixion. When examined closely, salvation by reason presents many logical and theological problems that are irreconcilable to Justin’s own theology, leaving salvation by redemption as the only logical possibility. This leaves one to question, why the contradiction? When the context of the Apologies is considered, it appears that Justin’s purpose for writing was to make Christianity more acceptable to the Roman Empire. By allowing for men like Socrates and Heraclitus to be considered Christians by virtue of their reason, Justin does just this. Additionally, he uses salvation by reason to solve the problem of the unreached. Yet, salvation by reason creates more problems than it solves and is still proven to be a logically unsound theory. Thus, Justin Martyr’s claim in his Apologies that before the Incarnation one could become a Christian is disproved by his own views of the logos and the logical necessity of redemption in Christianity.
1. What is the Logos?
According to Justin Martyr, the logos is Christ, who he calls reason combined with the will and power of the Father. He inseparably links reason and logos when he reveals that logos is the reason by which heavenly things are shown. Then, he equates the logos with Christ by saying “the [Father’s] Son, who is alone properly called Son, the logos who is with God and is begotten before the creation.” He reiterates this point stating that, “[the philosophers] did not know all that concerns the logos, who is Christ.” In these passages, Justin unmistakably defines the logos as the Son and unifies the logos, reason, and Christ.
The key word to understanding the relation of the logos to reason is “whole”, since “the whole rational principle became Christ.” Human understanding is encompassed in, but not separate from, the logos. For Justin, there is but one divine reason within which human reason is encompassed. This totality of reason is “greater than all human teaching” and is beyond anything that a human could possibly comprehend. Even the greatest of all secular philosophers had only a share in the logos for “each person spoke well, according to the part present in him of the divine logos.” The fact that a part of the divine logos was present in each person shows that human understanding is not a thing altogether separate from the divine reason, but is a small portion of the logos in its entirety.
In addition to the entirety of reason, Justin also defines the logos as the will and power of the Father. The will of the Father is solely enacted through the logos. Since God “[ordered] all things through Him” there can be nothing done by the will of the Father that is not done through the logos. “The power of the ineffable Father” is what set Christ apart from other great philosophers for Christ was not a “mere vessel of human reason.” This power gave Christ the understanding of the Father as well as the ability to accomplish the will of the Father, setting him high above any mere human.
With the Incarnation, the logos assumed our nature by becoming human and taking on flesh so the truths of religion could be “revealed by logos personally, when He had taken shape, and become man, and was called Jesus Christ.” Never had God been so personally revealed as when the logos took on flesh. The incarnation was clearly the greatest act of the logos, however flesh did not define Him. He existed in his entirety before the Incarnation. This aspect of the pre-Incarnate logos is essential to an understanding of Justin’s claim that men could become Christians before the Incarnation.
Before entering into an argument about Christianity, Justin’s meaning of the word Christian must be defined. First, in order to be a Christian, he says one must follow after Christ. People accomplish this by seeking “to dwell with God” and “to live according to His teachings” . In the introduction to his second apology, Justin says that, “those who lived as Christ will dwell with God in an existence free from suffering [we say those who have become Christians]”. This passage shows that those who seek to follow God are worthy to bear the name “Christian.” In Justin’s explanation of the Christian sacraments, he lists belief, right living, prayer, and fasting for remission of sins as essential to becoming a Christian. Becoming a Christian is a combination of belief that is gained through reason and faith, living correctly according to the will of the Father, and the forgiveness of sins committed through the power of God. All three aspects of the logos - reason, will and power - are contained in his definition of Christianity. This three-fold definition will prove invaluable in understanding Justin’s claims about salvation and Christianity.
2. Logos: Reason or Redeemer?
In the middle of his first apology, Justin makes a radical statement about salvation and Christianity. He claims that since people lived with reason before the incarnation, they were living with the logos and should be considered Christians. If the logos is reason, he continues, then men could live with the logos before the Incarnation since the logos was already existent in the world. Additionally, since the logos had planted the seeds of reason in humanity, all had access to reason before the Incarnation. Accordingly, men like Socrates and Heraclitus, who lived with the utmost of reason, were then Christians. Thus, becoming a Christian through reason before the Incarnation seems entirely plausible.
This logic necessarily leads to a salvation by deliberation that does away with the need for forgiveness. In fact, when Justin explains the purpose of the crucifixion and resurrection, forgiveness does not even enter into the discussion. Logos is considered as the teacher of the way to Christianity, since He directs people to think and act well. In this view of Christianity, the Christian is one who by reasonable thinking follows Christ.
In the Apologies, Justin also states that in order for a person to become a Christian, sin needs to be forgiven and the person redeemed. When Justin quotes Scripture concerning Jesus’ life and death, he mentions the necessity of redemption. He quotes Luke’s gospel saying, “for He will save His people from their sins” and Isaiah 54 saying, “and if your sins be as scarlet, I will make them white as wool, and if they be as crimson, I will make them white as snow.” These passages point to the need for redemption and forgiveness of sins for salvation. In addition to the inclusion of these prophecies, Justin also includes prayer and fasting for the forgiveness of sins in his list of things necessary to be called a follower of God.
This redemption cannot come from just any place, but needs to come through the death and resurrection of the logos. Justin explains how the crucifixion brought the reign of the logos and salvation of man saying, “sing to the Lord, all the earth, and proclaim His salvation day by day…the Lord has reigned from the tree.” This signifies that from the tree, which is the cross, Jesus brought redemption and salvation for humanity and now reigns because of that sacrifice. No longer is the logos just a teacher of the way to Christianity, but He is the way to Christianity. Through the propitiation of the cross, Jesus has redeemed humanity from its sin. Following this line of reason, the Christian is one who by the redemption of Jesus’ sacrifice follows Christ.
Justin apparently has two vastly different views of salvation: salvation by reason and salvation by redemption. In the first, salvation is open to all men and women who simply live within reason. In the second, salvation is open only to those who choose forgiveness through the sacrifice of Christ. These two clearly contrary views raise the question about which one is correct and why Justin contradicts himself at all.
3. The Problems of Salvation by Reason
When the claims of salvation by reason are followed out logically, this view of salvation is found to rest on unstable ground. Salvation by reason just does not seem to make logical or theological sense when one realizes the changing requirements for Christianity, the equating of ignorance with sin, and the diminishing of the role of the logos in salvation that this type of salvation implies.
Salvation by reason necessarily preaches a gospel of works, thus altering the requirements to become a Christian. Reason places the emphasis on the ability of the one doing the thinking and not on the grace and sacrifice of Christ. People are made Christians by deliberation and reasonable thinking; in short, righteousness comes from right thinking, not faith in God. Since Justin makes clear in his views on Christianity that one must be forgiven by God’s grace to be a Christian, salvation by reason simply does not seem to line up with the rest of Justin’s theology.
Yet, the purpose of presenting salvation by reason was to attempt to explain the accountability that was still required of all men before the Incarnation. Justin says that men and women were held accountable for their sin and somehow it needed to be forgiven. So he puts forth the idea that reasonable living will forgive this sin. His idea would work, perhaps, if ignorance was equated with sin. Ignorance could be considered the root of all sin, since a person who knows what is right should choose to do so. Then, by ridding a person of ignorance, he or she could be rid of sin. This view of redemption, however, presents many problems.
First, reason does not redeem a person of past sins, but only of sins in the future. Reasonable people who had lived intemperate and sinful lives could keep from sinning in the future, but they would still be held accountable for past actions. Second, when Justin mentions sin in his Apologies, he regards immorality and not ignorance to be the root. He does state that those who presently persecute the Christians are punished for their “present wickedness and ignorance of the good” . However, this ignorance seems to be only a part of the greater sin and immorality that Justin conveys through his examples of immoral behavior without any reference to ignorance as the root of the problem. The fact that a person has to have his or her sins forgiven before becoming a Christian has already been established. Therefore, since reason cannot redeem past sin nor, in fact, any sin at all, reason is not a valid means of salvation.
Another problem with salvation by reason is salvation after the Incarnation. People should still be able to access salvation though reasonable living since the logos is still reason. If this was the case, then Christ’s sacrifice would be unnecessary and the Incarnation would have been pointless. The only conceivable reason for the Incarnation would have been making salvation easier and more widely available to those who could not access it before, such as the uneducated. This reasoning essentially destroys the need for the Incarnate Christ and redemption since humanity could save itself by education. Since Justin clearly believes in the necessity of a savior and the importance of the Incarnation, salvation by reason does not make logical sense.
Still supposing that men could be saved by reason, then the only plausible reason for the Incarnation would be for Christ to come as the embodiment of Divine Reason. If this view is accepted, then the logos came as the entirety of reason within human form to bridge the gap between human reason and God’s reason, redeeming humanity through the impartation of the Divine Reason that is Christ. Though this theory may solve some problems of salvation by reason, it still leaves a dilemma for salvation before the Incarnation. Divine Reason would not have been available to humanity before the Incarnation, so people living before Christ would still not have had access to this redemption.
Finally, reason is only one part of the logos. The logos, as stated earlier, is the entirety of reason combined with the will and power of the Father. According to this definition, living by reason is not actually living with the logos. To fully live with the logos, one needs to be living with reason as well as the power and will of the Father. Those who choose to live by reason do follow after the logos, however they are not following after the whole logos. Thus, those who live by reason alone cannot be Christians.
According to these arguments, salvation by reason cannot be accepted as a valid means to salvation. Redemption, then, is the only option left to those desiring to become Christians. This view logically follows Justin’s requirements for salvation. Salvation by redemption allows for God’s grace to be enacted through forgiveness and does not place the responsibility of salvation on human works. This type of salvation also allows for Justin’s definition of sin as immorality. The saving work of the logos is not diminished in this view, since only Christ’s sacrifice was able to redeem men and women from their sins. Finally, salvation by redemption encompasses all three aspects of the logos. This occurs by men and women reasonably choosing to accept the redemption of Christ that was the will of the Father and then, by the power of the Father, receiving forgiveness. Since Justin obviously believes in the truth of salvation by redemption and it logically lines up with his beliefs, why then did he choose to write about salvation by reason? His purpose was twofold. First, salvation by reason would appease the Roman Empire and second, it would answer the question about salvation for those who have never heard the name of Christ.
4. The Reason for the Contradiction
Justin makes his claim of salvation by reason with the intention of making Christianity acceptable to the Roman Empire that was ruthlessly persecuting the church. If Justin could prove that Christianity was not a new upstart religion but founded on Greek and Roman thought, then their religion might become acceptable. The idea of salvation by reason can be traced back to Plato’s arguments made hundreds of years ago. Additionally, by providing a way for men like Socrates and Heraclitus to be saved, Justin links the heroes of Greek logic to Christianity. Thus, by making Christianity similar to Greek and Roman intellectual tradition, Justin could appease the raging Romans. Though this is a worthy goal, Justin’s solution was logically flawed and fought against the very traditions with which he was attempting to reconcile Christianity.
In addition to Roman appeasement, Justin uses salvation by reason to tackle the problem of salvation for those who have never heard the name of Jesus Christ. How can these people access the redemption they need to be saved if they had never heard about it? Would not reason be enough for these people who have lived and died without once hearing the name of Jesus? Surely God, in His mercy, would allow salvation by reason to apply to them.
This idea, though appealing, still presents problems. First, reason can lead to misconceptions. Justin makes clear that even the seeds of the logos can lead to contradictions and misunderstandings of the truth that is God. Even the best of human reason can still lead to error, so this same reason cannot possibly lead to a God who is truth. Second, reason cannot, as stated before, act as a redeemer. The only possibility for redemption by reason is if people are not held accountable for their sin until they are told about it. This theory creates more problems than it solves. If people are not accountable for their sin until they know about it, better to never tell them and be assured of their salvation, instead of giving them the chance to reject the Gospel. This creates a serious problem since it makes the Great Commission null and void and Christ’s sacrifice utterly worthless. As already proven, Christ’s sacrifice was necessary and redemption is vital to salvation, so logically there can be no salvation without redemption.
5. Conclusion
Through a proper understanding of the logos and the implications of a salvation by reason, one can conclude that salvation only comes through redemption by the logos as the Incarnate Christ. Since Justin portrays the logos as the entirety of reason with the will and power of the Father, living by reason is not even living with the whole logos. Salvation by reason does not even make sense within Justin’s own context. Additionally, the implication that salvation by reason could still be possible today is unreasonable given the understanding of sin and redemption that Justin explains. Since salvation by reason is not an option for even the unreached we must approach evangelism with a much greater gravity. Men and women are dying every day without any understanding of the redemption that is available to them. Christ has given his Church a command to go and bring his redemption to all nations, for reason alone cannot save a single soul.
Works Cited
Justin Martyr. St. Justin Martyr The First and Second Apologies. Translated by Leslie
William Barnard. New York: Paulist Press, 1997.
Christianity and the Logos in The First and Second Apologies of Justin Martyr
The role of the logos in Justin Martyr’s First and Second Apologies creates a radical conflict that is still affecting the Church today. According to Justin Martyr, if men and women live by reason they are essentially living with the logos and therefore must be called Christians, a label suggesting they are therefore saved by reason. However, he also says that salvation comes through the redemption of Christ’s crucifixion. When examined closely, salvation by reason presents many logical and theological problems that are irreconcilable to Justin’s own theology, leaving salvation by redemption as the only logical possibility. This leaves one to question, why the contradiction? When the context of the Apologies is considered, it appears that Justin’s purpose for writing was to make Christianity more acceptable to the Roman Empire. By allowing for men like Socrates and Heraclitus to be considered Christians by virtue of their reason, Justin does just this. Additionally, he uses salvation by reason to solve the problem of the unreached. Yet, salvation by reason creates more problems than it solves and is still proven to be a logically unsound theory. Thus, Justin Martyr’s claim in his Apologies that before the Incarnation one could become a Christian is disproved by his own views of the logos and the logical necessity of redemption in Christianity.
1. What is the Logos?
According to Justin Martyr, the logos is Christ, who he calls reason combined with the will and power of the Father. He inseparably links reason and logos when he reveals that logos is the reason by which heavenly things are shown. Then, he equates the logos with Christ by saying “the [Father’s] Son, who is alone properly called Son, the logos who is with God and is begotten before the creation.” He reiterates this point stating that, “[the philosophers] did not know all that concerns the logos, who is Christ.” In these passages, Justin unmistakably defines the logos as the Son and unifies the logos, reason, and Christ.
The key word to understanding the relation of the logos to reason is “whole”, since “the whole rational principle became Christ.” Human understanding is encompassed in, but not separate from, the logos. For Justin, there is but one divine reason within which human reason is encompassed. This totality of reason is “greater than all human teaching” and is beyond anything that a human could possibly comprehend. Even the greatest of all secular philosophers had only a share in the logos for “each person spoke well, according to the part present in him of the divine logos.” The fact that a part of the divine logos was present in each person shows that human understanding is not a thing altogether separate from the divine reason, but is a small portion of the logos in its entirety.
In addition to the entirety of reason, Justin also defines the logos as the will and power of the Father. The will of the Father is solely enacted through the logos. Since God “[ordered] all things through Him” there can be nothing done by the will of the Father that is not done through the logos. “The power of the ineffable Father” is what set Christ apart from other great philosophers for Christ was not a “mere vessel of human reason.” This power gave Christ the understanding of the Father as well as the ability to accomplish the will of the Father, setting him high above any mere human.
With the Incarnation, the logos assumed our nature by becoming human and taking on flesh so the truths of religion could be “revealed by logos personally, when He had taken shape, and become man, and was called Jesus Christ.” Never had God been so personally revealed as when the logos took on flesh. The incarnation was clearly the greatest act of the logos, however flesh did not define Him. He existed in his entirety before the Incarnation. This aspect of the pre-Incarnate logos is essential to an understanding of Justin’s claim that men could become Christians before the Incarnation.
Before entering into an argument about Christianity, Justin’s meaning of the word Christian must be defined. First, in order to be a Christian, he says one must follow after Christ. People accomplish this by seeking “to dwell with God” and “to live according to His teachings” . In the introduction to his second apology, Justin says that, “those who lived as Christ will dwell with God in an existence free from suffering [we say those who have become Christians]”. This passage shows that those who seek to follow God are worthy to bear the name “Christian.” In Justin’s explanation of the Christian sacraments, he lists belief, right living, prayer, and fasting for remission of sins as essential to becoming a Christian. Becoming a Christian is a combination of belief that is gained through reason and faith, living correctly according to the will of the Father, and the forgiveness of sins committed through the power of God. All three aspects of the logos - reason, will and power - are contained in his definition of Christianity. This three-fold definition will prove invaluable in understanding Justin’s claims about salvation and Christianity.
2. Logos: Reason or Redeemer?
In the middle of his first apology, Justin makes a radical statement about salvation and Christianity. He claims that since people lived with reason before the incarnation, they were living with the logos and should be considered Christians. If the logos is reason, he continues, then men could live with the logos before the Incarnation since the logos was already existent in the world. Additionally, since the logos had planted the seeds of reason in humanity, all had access to reason before the Incarnation. Accordingly, men like Socrates and Heraclitus, who lived with the utmost of reason, were then Christians. Thus, becoming a Christian through reason before the Incarnation seems entirely plausible.
This logic necessarily leads to a salvation by deliberation that does away with the need for forgiveness. In fact, when Justin explains the purpose of the crucifixion and resurrection, forgiveness does not even enter into the discussion. Logos is considered as the teacher of the way to Christianity, since He directs people to think and act well. In this view of Christianity, the Christian is one who by reasonable thinking follows Christ.
In the Apologies, Justin also states that in order for a person to become a Christian, sin needs to be forgiven and the person redeemed. When Justin quotes Scripture concerning Jesus’ life and death, he mentions the necessity of redemption. He quotes Luke’s gospel saying, “for He will save His people from their sins” and Isaiah 54 saying, “and if your sins be as scarlet, I will make them white as wool, and if they be as crimson, I will make them white as snow.” These passages point to the need for redemption and forgiveness of sins for salvation. In addition to the inclusion of these prophecies, Justin also includes prayer and fasting for the forgiveness of sins in his list of things necessary to be called a follower of God.
This redemption cannot come from just any place, but needs to come through the death and resurrection of the logos. Justin explains how the crucifixion brought the reign of the logos and salvation of man saying, “sing to the Lord, all the earth, and proclaim His salvation day by day…the Lord has reigned from the tree.” This signifies that from the tree, which is the cross, Jesus brought redemption and salvation for humanity and now reigns because of that sacrifice. No longer is the logos just a teacher of the way to Christianity, but He is the way to Christianity. Through the propitiation of the cross, Jesus has redeemed humanity from its sin. Following this line of reason, the Christian is one who by the redemption of Jesus’ sacrifice follows Christ.
Justin apparently has two vastly different views of salvation: salvation by reason and salvation by redemption. In the first, salvation is open to all men and women who simply live within reason. In the second, salvation is open only to those who choose forgiveness through the sacrifice of Christ. These two clearly contrary views raise the question about which one is correct and why Justin contradicts himself at all.
3. The Problems of Salvation by Reason
When the claims of salvation by reason are followed out logically, this view of salvation is found to rest on unstable ground. Salvation by reason just does not seem to make logical or theological sense when one realizes the changing requirements for Christianity, the equating of ignorance with sin, and the diminishing of the role of the logos in salvation that this type of salvation implies.
Salvation by reason necessarily preaches a gospel of works, thus altering the requirements to become a Christian. Reason places the emphasis on the ability of the one doing the thinking and not on the grace and sacrifice of Christ. People are made Christians by deliberation and reasonable thinking; in short, righteousness comes from right thinking, not faith in God. Since Justin makes clear in his views on Christianity that one must be forgiven by God’s grace to be a Christian, salvation by reason simply does not seem to line up with the rest of Justin’s theology.
Yet, the purpose of presenting salvation by reason was to attempt to explain the accountability that was still required of all men before the Incarnation. Justin says that men and women were held accountable for their sin and somehow it needed to be forgiven. So he puts forth the idea that reasonable living will forgive this sin. His idea would work, perhaps, if ignorance was equated with sin. Ignorance could be considered the root of all sin, since a person who knows what is right should choose to do so. Then, by ridding a person of ignorance, he or she could be rid of sin. This view of redemption, however, presents many problems.
First, reason does not redeem a person of past sins, but only of sins in the future. Reasonable people who had lived intemperate and sinful lives could keep from sinning in the future, but they would still be held accountable for past actions. Second, when Justin mentions sin in his Apologies, he regards immorality and not ignorance to be the root. He does state that those who presently persecute the Christians are punished for their “present wickedness and ignorance of the good” . However, this ignorance seems to be only a part of the greater sin and immorality that Justin conveys through his examples of immoral behavior without any reference to ignorance as the root of the problem. The fact that a person has to have his or her sins forgiven before becoming a Christian has already been established. Therefore, since reason cannot redeem past sin nor, in fact, any sin at all, reason is not a valid means of salvation.
Another problem with salvation by reason is salvation after the Incarnation. People should still be able to access salvation though reasonable living since the logos is still reason. If this was the case, then Christ’s sacrifice would be unnecessary and the Incarnation would have been pointless. The only conceivable reason for the Incarnation would have been making salvation easier and more widely available to those who could not access it before, such as the uneducated. This reasoning essentially destroys the need for the Incarnate Christ and redemption since humanity could save itself by education. Since Justin clearly believes in the necessity of a savior and the importance of the Incarnation, salvation by reason does not make logical sense.
Still supposing that men could be saved by reason, then the only plausible reason for the Incarnation would be for Christ to come as the embodiment of Divine Reason. If this view is accepted, then the logos came as the entirety of reason within human form to bridge the gap between human reason and God’s reason, redeeming humanity through the impartation of the Divine Reason that is Christ. Though this theory may solve some problems of salvation by reason, it still leaves a dilemma for salvation before the Incarnation. Divine Reason would not have been available to humanity before the Incarnation, so people living before Christ would still not have had access to this redemption.
Finally, reason is only one part of the logos. The logos, as stated earlier, is the entirety of reason combined with the will and power of the Father. According to this definition, living by reason is not actually living with the logos. To fully live with the logos, one needs to be living with reason as well as the power and will of the Father. Those who choose to live by reason do follow after the logos, however they are not following after the whole logos. Thus, those who live by reason alone cannot be Christians.
According to these arguments, salvation by reason cannot be accepted as a valid means to salvation. Redemption, then, is the only option left to those desiring to become Christians. This view logically follows Justin’s requirements for salvation. Salvation by redemption allows for God’s grace to be enacted through forgiveness and does not place the responsibility of salvation on human works. This type of salvation also allows for Justin’s definition of sin as immorality. The saving work of the logos is not diminished in this view, since only Christ’s sacrifice was able to redeem men and women from their sins. Finally, salvation by redemption encompasses all three aspects of the logos. This occurs by men and women reasonably choosing to accept the redemption of Christ that was the will of the Father and then, by the power of the Father, receiving forgiveness. Since Justin obviously believes in the truth of salvation by redemption and it logically lines up with his beliefs, why then did he choose to write about salvation by reason? His purpose was twofold. First, salvation by reason would appease the Roman Empire and second, it would answer the question about salvation for those who have never heard the name of Christ.
4. The Reason for the Contradiction
Justin makes his claim of salvation by reason with the intention of making Christianity acceptable to the Roman Empire that was ruthlessly persecuting the church. If Justin could prove that Christianity was not a new upstart religion but founded on Greek and Roman thought, then their religion might become acceptable. The idea of salvation by reason can be traced back to Plato’s arguments made hundreds of years ago. Additionally, by providing a way for men like Socrates and Heraclitus to be saved, Justin links the heroes of Greek logic to Christianity. Thus, by making Christianity similar to Greek and Roman intellectual tradition, Justin could appease the raging Romans. Though this is a worthy goal, Justin’s solution was logically flawed and fought against the very traditions with which he was attempting to reconcile Christianity.
In addition to Roman appeasement, Justin uses salvation by reason to tackle the problem of salvation for those who have never heard the name of Jesus Christ. How can these people access the redemption they need to be saved if they had never heard about it? Would not reason be enough for these people who have lived and died without once hearing the name of Jesus? Surely God, in His mercy, would allow salvation by reason to apply to them.
This idea, though appealing, still presents problems. First, reason can lead to misconceptions. Justin makes clear that even the seeds of the logos can lead to contradictions and misunderstandings of the truth that is God. Even the best of human reason can still lead to error, so this same reason cannot possibly lead to a God who is truth. Second, reason cannot, as stated before, act as a redeemer. The only possibility for redemption by reason is if people are not held accountable for their sin until they are told about it. This theory creates more problems than it solves. If people are not accountable for their sin until they know about it, better to never tell them and be assured of their salvation, instead of giving them the chance to reject the Gospel. This creates a serious problem since it makes the Great Commission null and void and Christ’s sacrifice utterly worthless. As already proven, Christ’s sacrifice was necessary and redemption is vital to salvation, so logically there can be no salvation without redemption.
5. Conclusion
Through a proper understanding of the logos and the implications of a salvation by reason, one can conclude that salvation only comes through redemption by the logos as the Incarnate Christ. Since Justin portrays the logos as the entirety of reason with the will and power of the Father, living by reason is not even living with the whole logos. Salvation by reason does not even make sense within Justin’s own context. Additionally, the implication that salvation by reason could still be possible today is unreasonable given the understanding of sin and redemption that Justin explains. Since salvation by reason is not an option for even the unreached we must approach evangelism with a much greater gravity. Men and women are dying every day without any understanding of the redemption that is available to them. Christ has given his Church a command to go and bring his redemption to all nations, for reason alone cannot save a single soul.
Works Cited
Justin Martyr. St. Justin Martyr The First and Second Apologies. Translated by Leslie
William Barnard. New York: Paulist Press, 1997.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Morality in Film
Today is a typical Saturday afternoon and I walk into a movie theater and try to decide what to watch with my friends. Well, there is a slew of R-rated films for my viewing pleasure or I could watch the newest installment of Ice Age-who-knows-what-sequel. Neither of these choices seems very appealing and the odd chance there is an incredible film that bridges the gap between the insane and the inane is slim. I sigh, why is it that films without questionable morals seem to be relegated to the realm of animated cartoons and kids with cheap spy gear?
After looking through the films listed on the flashing NOW PLAYING board at least two times over, I finally relegate myself to the least glaringly distasteful film, buy a bucket of greasy popcorn and settle in for the show. Sitting in the dark of the theater, I wonder why this still happens. It’s not as if this question of morals and film is anything new. From the beginning of moves, filmmakers have been pushing the limits of what is considered appropriate for public viewing. Edison began the controversy with his short nickelodeon The Kiss. Though the film only portrayed a couple kissing was less than a minute – far shorter than the modern make-out scene that starts out my Saturday afternoon matinee – the Victorian age public with their high-class notions of propriety were grossly offended. Yet they flocked to the theaters in droves to see it. What irony.
Of course, who am I to judge these masses when here I am sitting in this theater feeding the very films that I claim to be so objected to. Somehow this immorality has a tug and a pull to which even I am not immune. There is something alluring about the violence and sensuality on the screen that draws something inside us. Call it an unhealthy curiosity if you want, but it makes money and so these films thrive.
Even during the age of the “pristine” films made during the Production Code, this curiosity abounded. Gone with the Wind, a favorite film during the era when the Bible Belt reigned supreme, was based wholly on an unscrupulous relationship to say the least. Even if there were no sex-scenes, the relationship between the infatuated Scarlet and her best friend’s weasely husband makes for quite the scandal. Oh sure, it was a beautifully written piece and the cinematography and the sets were exquisite, but I’m fairly positive the public didn’t go to see it for those reasons alone.
Besides, can good filmmaking really redeem a film? I mean, is our loyalty first to beauty or morality? Of course, that leaves me to ask, can anything that seems to spit in the face of God truly be beautiful? So anything that is beautiful must also be moral, right? It seems to make sense, but when I look at films I’ve watched…that seemingly simple answer just doesn’t hold. It does seem that something must have a glimmer of truth within it to be beautiful, so how do we find that beauty?
When Bonnie and Clyde came out after the fall of the Production Code, it shocked and awed audiences with it’s graphic portrayal of violence and sensuality. Though the film clearly didn’t follow the said appropriate moral guidelines, there was something about the film that drew me in – and it wasn’t the violence or the sex. I saw in Bonnie, something of my world…perhaps even of myself. She was trapped in a world of violence that she couldn’t escape because of her lust and desire for a man who refused to leave. She started out seeking only a thrill and excitement. Her life ended tragically without any hope or future. Is this not exactly what is happening in our world? We begin with this unhealthy curiosity that leads into a dangerous world that, no matter how we want to escape, we can’t because we are afraid of the gaping hole it might leave in our lives. Are not the films that we watch in droves simply reflections of this reality?
This was the truth that I saw in Bonnie and Clyde. This was it’s beauty. Through these questionable morals, the filmmaker was able to convey something true about that particular lifestyle, and no matter how the public may object, it is true. So do we then have the right to tell the truth by such seemingly immoral means? If film is the molder of our culture, perhaps there is a responsibility to shape the films by moral codes. But what if film is only a reflection of the culture that already exists and it’s purpose is to expose the problems that are already present? Those who don’t want to know can go and watch Ice Age.
I think this may be closer to the truth. Come to think of it, God didn’t even keep immorality out of His stories. There can be no man more tragically immoral that Lot, nor many battles more full of violence and deceit than the conquest of the Promised Land led by Joshua, and nobody making a realistic rendering of Revelation could even hope for a PG rating. So why am I still disgusted with myself for sitting here, stuffing popcorn in my mouth while watching these two perfectly-powdered movie-stars making out? If immorality isn’t the problem, then what is? It’s not as if David didn’t do worse with Bathsheba, and he never even repented until Nathan came and set things straight. Yet, Nathan did come and I don’t think these two lovers with licentious lips have any hope of a redeeming prophet. I’m not at the end yet…but hey, it’s a pretty typical storyline here.
So, maybe what films need then is a prophet – or at the very least a reason for their immorality. In exposing the problems of our society, film could be both a mirror and a guide. By showing us the miserable pit we have dug for ourselves, the films could at least toss us a line to help us out. Even Bonnie and Clyde did this. Not with any explicit moral, certainly. However, by showing how hopeless that life was, it serves a warning against those who would be like Bonnie and follow that curiosity into a dark, dangerous world. This message is much more subtle, but I think I like it better that way. I don’t want to be preached at, I want to discover truth for myself. Through films that tactfully utilize and expose immorality, I can do just that. There is a certain thrill that comes from suddenly discovering the deeper meaning to a film that I thought was at first just gratuitously violent.
Leaving the theater, I realize that some films are just garbage and should be thrown out with the empty popcorn bag. However, there are some films that truly do glorify God, even if they are laced with violence and sensuality. Clearly there is a line that must be walked between exploring and exploiting. There is a contrast between those films that use immorality as a tool to expose and solve problems and those films that use immorality as a cheap thrill to make a buck. This difference lies with Nathan. Though I may not ever make a movie as violent as Bonnie and Clyde, I can certainly see the voice of the prophet speaking through that film about hope in a world of hopelessness. It is my heartfelt prayer that I will always have Nathan by my side, helping me to find the reason for the sin and, never justifying it, show the world how it needs to be dealt with. It is precisely these types of films that will still draw in the curious, but leave them with a better sense of beauty than the next slasher sequel.
This was my History of Cinema paper that i wrote on spiritual themes in films. The "I" is fictional...so don't worry, I'm not really watching horrid films in the theaters down here ;)
After looking through the films listed on the flashing NOW PLAYING board at least two times over, I finally relegate myself to the least glaringly distasteful film, buy a bucket of greasy popcorn and settle in for the show. Sitting in the dark of the theater, I wonder why this still happens. It’s not as if this question of morals and film is anything new. From the beginning of moves, filmmakers have been pushing the limits of what is considered appropriate for public viewing. Edison began the controversy with his short nickelodeon The Kiss. Though the film only portrayed a couple kissing was less than a minute – far shorter than the modern make-out scene that starts out my Saturday afternoon matinee – the Victorian age public with their high-class notions of propriety were grossly offended. Yet they flocked to the theaters in droves to see it. What irony.
Of course, who am I to judge these masses when here I am sitting in this theater feeding the very films that I claim to be so objected to. Somehow this immorality has a tug and a pull to which even I am not immune. There is something alluring about the violence and sensuality on the screen that draws something inside us. Call it an unhealthy curiosity if you want, but it makes money and so these films thrive.
Even during the age of the “pristine” films made during the Production Code, this curiosity abounded. Gone with the Wind, a favorite film during the era when the Bible Belt reigned supreme, was based wholly on an unscrupulous relationship to say the least. Even if there were no sex-scenes, the relationship between the infatuated Scarlet and her best friend’s weasely husband makes for quite the scandal. Oh sure, it was a beautifully written piece and the cinematography and the sets were exquisite, but I’m fairly positive the public didn’t go to see it for those reasons alone.
Besides, can good filmmaking really redeem a film? I mean, is our loyalty first to beauty or morality? Of course, that leaves me to ask, can anything that seems to spit in the face of God truly be beautiful? So anything that is beautiful must also be moral, right? It seems to make sense, but when I look at films I’ve watched…that seemingly simple answer just doesn’t hold. It does seem that something must have a glimmer of truth within it to be beautiful, so how do we find that beauty?
When Bonnie and Clyde came out after the fall of the Production Code, it shocked and awed audiences with it’s graphic portrayal of violence and sensuality. Though the film clearly didn’t follow the said appropriate moral guidelines, there was something about the film that drew me in – and it wasn’t the violence or the sex. I saw in Bonnie, something of my world…perhaps even of myself. She was trapped in a world of violence that she couldn’t escape because of her lust and desire for a man who refused to leave. She started out seeking only a thrill and excitement. Her life ended tragically without any hope or future. Is this not exactly what is happening in our world? We begin with this unhealthy curiosity that leads into a dangerous world that, no matter how we want to escape, we can’t because we are afraid of the gaping hole it might leave in our lives. Are not the films that we watch in droves simply reflections of this reality?
This was the truth that I saw in Bonnie and Clyde. This was it’s beauty. Through these questionable morals, the filmmaker was able to convey something true about that particular lifestyle, and no matter how the public may object, it is true. So do we then have the right to tell the truth by such seemingly immoral means? If film is the molder of our culture, perhaps there is a responsibility to shape the films by moral codes. But what if film is only a reflection of the culture that already exists and it’s purpose is to expose the problems that are already present? Those who don’t want to know can go and watch Ice Age.
I think this may be closer to the truth. Come to think of it, God didn’t even keep immorality out of His stories. There can be no man more tragically immoral that Lot, nor many battles more full of violence and deceit than the conquest of the Promised Land led by Joshua, and nobody making a realistic rendering of Revelation could even hope for a PG rating. So why am I still disgusted with myself for sitting here, stuffing popcorn in my mouth while watching these two perfectly-powdered movie-stars making out? If immorality isn’t the problem, then what is? It’s not as if David didn’t do worse with Bathsheba, and he never even repented until Nathan came and set things straight. Yet, Nathan did come and I don’t think these two lovers with licentious lips have any hope of a redeeming prophet. I’m not at the end yet…but hey, it’s a pretty typical storyline here.
So, maybe what films need then is a prophet – or at the very least a reason for their immorality. In exposing the problems of our society, film could be both a mirror and a guide. By showing us the miserable pit we have dug for ourselves, the films could at least toss us a line to help us out. Even Bonnie and Clyde did this. Not with any explicit moral, certainly. However, by showing how hopeless that life was, it serves a warning against those who would be like Bonnie and follow that curiosity into a dark, dangerous world. This message is much more subtle, but I think I like it better that way. I don’t want to be preached at, I want to discover truth for myself. Through films that tactfully utilize and expose immorality, I can do just that. There is a certain thrill that comes from suddenly discovering the deeper meaning to a film that I thought was at first just gratuitously violent.
Leaving the theater, I realize that some films are just garbage and should be thrown out with the empty popcorn bag. However, there are some films that truly do glorify God, even if they are laced with violence and sensuality. Clearly there is a line that must be walked between exploring and exploiting. There is a contrast between those films that use immorality as a tool to expose and solve problems and those films that use immorality as a cheap thrill to make a buck. This difference lies with Nathan. Though I may not ever make a movie as violent as Bonnie and Clyde, I can certainly see the voice of the prophet speaking through that film about hope in a world of hopelessness. It is my heartfelt prayer that I will always have Nathan by my side, helping me to find the reason for the sin and, never justifying it, show the world how it needs to be dealt with. It is precisely these types of films that will still draw in the curious, but leave them with a better sense of beauty than the next slasher sequel.
This was my History of Cinema paper that i wrote on spiritual themes in films. The "I" is fictional...so don't worry, I'm not really watching horrid films in the theaters down here ;)
It's My Life
After a session on Augustine's City of God I wrote this as a response to what we discussed about Free Will. Feel free to read this and let me know what you think. I know these ideas are a bit out there...I don't know how correct this is, but would love to talk through it and see what you guys think.
It’s my life. It’s my choice. These words screamed from all stages and ages of life give a clear indication of how our society views free will. Our lives are our own, they belong to nobody. However, this selfish view of choices and free will is not exactly what God had in mind when He gave us free will. Humanities fixation with its ability to choose wrong should strike us as strange. We seem to be locked into a mentality that associates freewill with the choice of evil and if that choice is ever removed we break out in fits of anger and rage. Yet God, having the ultimate form of free will, cannot ever choose evil. Thus, our fixation with evil must be a perversion of our God-given free will.
Free will on Earth seems to come from two choices – the choice to do good and the choice to do evil. We are born into this world already choosing evil, but then, through the power of the Holy Spirit, we can break from that bond and choose good. The ultimate choice of either good or evil decides where we shall spend eternity. If we choose good on earth we are sent to Paradise and the Second Earth where evil will no longer exist. Yet in this heaven, free will should still exist since we still retain our essential natures. So, in this place our free will becomes like God’s and we are free from having to choose good over evil, but are now in a place where we can choose between two goods. At first, our inner selves seem to cringe at this as a definition of free will. We seem to scream out, it’s not free will unless I can choose not to do good. However, this simply does not make logical sense. Unless our free will is better than God’s through its corruption, the choice of evil is simply a lesser use of our free will.
Our other earthly choice is to choose evil and spend eternity in the ultimate punishment of our free will – isolated from God and forever forbidden from choosing good. There seems to be a struggle here on earth that is a middle ground between these two final states of free will. The outcome of our choices on Earth determines whether our free will becomes eternally blessed or eternally damned. Perhaps, Earth is not where our free will is even at its greatest, but is at a crossroads between one final state or another. Thus the choice between good and evil is the lesser form of free will. When we are bound to constantly choose good over evil we cannot fully experience the blessing of choosing between two goods and never having to worry about our choices leading to sin. What blessed relief there would be in that place, to never again fear the consequences of our choices but to be free to truly choose what we desire, knowing it will forever be right.
It’s my life. It’s my choice. These words screamed from all stages and ages of life give a clear indication of how our society views free will. Our lives are our own, they belong to nobody. However, this selfish view of choices and free will is not exactly what God had in mind when He gave us free will. Humanities fixation with its ability to choose wrong should strike us as strange. We seem to be locked into a mentality that associates freewill with the choice of evil and if that choice is ever removed we break out in fits of anger and rage. Yet God, having the ultimate form of free will, cannot ever choose evil. Thus, our fixation with evil must be a perversion of our God-given free will.
Free will on Earth seems to come from two choices – the choice to do good and the choice to do evil. We are born into this world already choosing evil, but then, through the power of the Holy Spirit, we can break from that bond and choose good. The ultimate choice of either good or evil decides where we shall spend eternity. If we choose good on earth we are sent to Paradise and the Second Earth where evil will no longer exist. Yet in this heaven, free will should still exist since we still retain our essential natures. So, in this place our free will becomes like God’s and we are free from having to choose good over evil, but are now in a place where we can choose between two goods. At first, our inner selves seem to cringe at this as a definition of free will. We seem to scream out, it’s not free will unless I can choose not to do good. However, this simply does not make logical sense. Unless our free will is better than God’s through its corruption, the choice of evil is simply a lesser use of our free will.
Our other earthly choice is to choose evil and spend eternity in the ultimate punishment of our free will – isolated from God and forever forbidden from choosing good. There seems to be a struggle here on earth that is a middle ground between these two final states of free will. The outcome of our choices on Earth determines whether our free will becomes eternally blessed or eternally damned. Perhaps, Earth is not where our free will is even at its greatest, but is at a crossroads between one final state or another. Thus the choice between good and evil is the lesser form of free will. When we are bound to constantly choose good over evil we cannot fully experience the blessing of choosing between two goods and never having to worry about our choices leading to sin. What blessed relief there would be in that place, to never again fear the consequences of our choices but to be free to truly choose what we desire, knowing it will forever be right.
Thursday, March 6, 2008
Tragedy
The tragedy of Christianity is not it's persecution but it's failure to use it's freedoms to serve God.
I just finished reading the martyrdoms in Eusebius' History of the Church. These Christians were continually being murdered and tortured in unspeakable ways for their faith. While we in America have no fear of death, but we squander our precious freedom on the pursuits of pleasure and leisure while forgetting to even have a quiet moment with God? Isn't there something wrong with that?
I just finished reading the martyrdoms in Eusebius' History of the Church. These Christians were continually being murdered and tortured in unspeakable ways for their faith. While we in America have no fear of death, but we squander our precious freedom on the pursuits of pleasure and leisure while forgetting to even have a quiet moment with God? Isn't there something wrong with that?
Monday, February 11, 2008
something else entirely
This is my pull question for The Bacche, I found the subject interesting and thought i'd post it here to see what any of you though about this subject.
In our culture, the church fights a popular image of stiff-necked hypocrites and people who are simply boring, lacking any of the joys or merriment of life. These images are horrendously detrimental when we are trying to reach out to the lost and we as the Church must find a way to combat them. In searching for this battle strategy it is helpful to look at the characters of Pentheus and Dionysus in The Bacche and analyze the way they represent the views of the church .
Pentheus represents structure, formality, duty and responsibility and yet he is curious of life outside his own rules and will break them to explore the forbidden delights. Dionysus on the other hand, represents the opposite of the church, living loosely and embodying the utter ends of a life lived for passion and gratification. Traditionally, Christians have taken one of two methods in combating these stereotypes. Either they choose to defend Pentheus and say why he was truly the greater man and his way of living is best or they choose to put themselves forth as the true Dionysus and appropriate his lifestyle as their own. Unfortunately, neither of these options are the correct response.
Defending Pentheus is a dangerous option for Christians, because we defend what we are not. Christianity does support duty and responsibility as Pentheus does, however there is one thing on which the two differ greatly – freedom. Pentheus is so strangled by legality that he is unable to see when change is necessary and even good. He has no freedom to actually enjoy life, and is instead so consumed with keeping order that he cannot exercise any freedom to rejoice in his life. The Church, as Christ intended it to be, is the epitome of this freedom, allowing for change and joy in life. By defending the whole of Pentheus we are, in reality, advocating this loss of freedom.
However, becoming Dionysus is equally dangerous. Though certainly appealing to the lost, this option is also a false representation of Christianity for it really only offers salvation for those who have no intention of ever making a lifestyle change. In fact, the reason there is so much sin and pleasure seeking in the Church is likely because Christianity has been presented as a form of the Dionysian lifestyle. However this is in direct contradiction with the Biblical standards of holiness and self-sacrifice. Additionally, Dionysus severely lacks mercy. He offers acceptance perhaps, but no mercy. Either you support him entirely, or you will die, there is no room for repentance. This is completely the opposite of the gospel, offers forgiveness for mistakes and an opportunity to repent for sin.
The correct response, then, is to portray the Church as neither Pentheus nor Dionysus, but rather as something else entirely. The stereotype should be that the Church is a place where Pentheus finds freedom and Dionysus finds mercy and forgiveness. We need to expose the weaknesses of both characters and show how the Church comes in and completes them.
In our culture, the church fights a popular image of stiff-necked hypocrites and people who are simply boring, lacking any of the joys or merriment of life. These images are horrendously detrimental when we are trying to reach out to the lost and we as the Church must find a way to combat them. In searching for this battle strategy it is helpful to look at the characters of Pentheus and Dionysus in The Bacche and analyze the way they represent the views of the church .
Pentheus represents structure, formality, duty and responsibility and yet he is curious of life outside his own rules and will break them to explore the forbidden delights. Dionysus on the other hand, represents the opposite of the church, living loosely and embodying the utter ends of a life lived for passion and gratification. Traditionally, Christians have taken one of two methods in combating these stereotypes. Either they choose to defend Pentheus and say why he was truly the greater man and his way of living is best or they choose to put themselves forth as the true Dionysus and appropriate his lifestyle as their own. Unfortunately, neither of these options are the correct response.
Defending Pentheus is a dangerous option for Christians, because we defend what we are not. Christianity does support duty and responsibility as Pentheus does, however there is one thing on which the two differ greatly – freedom. Pentheus is so strangled by legality that he is unable to see when change is necessary and even good. He has no freedom to actually enjoy life, and is instead so consumed with keeping order that he cannot exercise any freedom to rejoice in his life. The Church, as Christ intended it to be, is the epitome of this freedom, allowing for change and joy in life. By defending the whole of Pentheus we are, in reality, advocating this loss of freedom.
However, becoming Dionysus is equally dangerous. Though certainly appealing to the lost, this option is also a false representation of Christianity for it really only offers salvation for those who have no intention of ever making a lifestyle change. In fact, the reason there is so much sin and pleasure seeking in the Church is likely because Christianity has been presented as a form of the Dionysian lifestyle. However this is in direct contradiction with the Biblical standards of holiness and self-sacrifice. Additionally, Dionysus severely lacks mercy. He offers acceptance perhaps, but no mercy. Either you support him entirely, or you will die, there is no room for repentance. This is completely the opposite of the gospel, offers forgiveness for mistakes and an opportunity to repent for sin.
The correct response, then, is to portray the Church as neither Pentheus nor Dionysus, but rather as something else entirely. The stereotype should be that the Church is a place where Pentheus finds freedom and Dionysus finds mercy and forgiveness. We need to expose the weaknesses of both characters and show how the Church comes in and completes them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
