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.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
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.
Monday, December 24, 2007
The Proper Motive - Oedipus and Unintentional Sin
In Sophocles’ three Thebean Plays, the playwright introduces us to a mythical man named Oedipus. Unknowingly raised by an adopted family, Oedipus leaves for another town and marries Jocasta, the widowed queen of the city. They have four children together and love each other dearly. However, there is a problem. Hidden from them both is the fact that Jocasta is Oedipus’ mother. She was certain that her son was dead and he was certain that his parents lived far, far from him. They certainly had no intent to be involved in an incestual relationship, but incest it was.
Throughout the course of the plays, Sophocles insists that Oedipus’ sin was no fault of his own. His only desire was to be in a healthy marriage and he truly loved his wife as a good husband ought. He had no way of possibly knowing that Jocasta was his mother, so how could he be held accountable for actions he did not even intend to commit? Certainly the gods of Greece could not blame him for unknowingly marrying his mother.
This raises an interesting problem for Christians, does God hold us accountable for unintentional sin? Like Oedipus, are we exempt from the guilt of a sin unknowingly committed or do we still bear the guilt?
Leviticus appears to provide a very clear cut answer. In 5:17 the law says, “If anyone sins, doing any of the things that by the Lord’s commandments ought not to be done, though he did not know it, then realizes his guilt, he shall bear his iniquity.”
This verse seems to say that even if you sin unintentionally that you still bear your guilt. In other words, it’s still sin. This brings up an interesting idea for if this is true, then sin does not require volition, or a desire to sin. I used to define sin as “willful disobedience against God”, but if Leviticus is to be believed then sin does not require a will. This is somewhat of a scary thought, for if we don’t have to be willing ourselves to sin then how can we avoid it. If we think we are telling the truth but then find out it is a lie, we are still held guilty for our lie. Even though we had every intention of telling the truth and not sinning. We can still be sinning even when we do all we can to honor God.
I understand the fact that God is holy and cannot allow unholiness, but this just does not make sense to me. Why does God hold us accountable for sins we did not mean to commit, and not just by negligence for not knowing that murder is sin is simply a lack of seeking truth, but when we seek to honor God by telling the truth only to discover it’s a lie and then be caught in sin?
A girl in my group, Megan, said that if we truly love God that we would want to repent even if we had no idea that we were in sin. I agree with her wholeheartedly, but I’m still confused. So I’m looking more into sin…and what it is exactly.
I’d also love to hear what others think about this problem. Hearing from you all always helps the truth seem more clear!
Throughout the course of the plays, Sophocles insists that Oedipus’ sin was no fault of his own. His only desire was to be in a healthy marriage and he truly loved his wife as a good husband ought. He had no way of possibly knowing that Jocasta was his mother, so how could he be held accountable for actions he did not even intend to commit? Certainly the gods of Greece could not blame him for unknowingly marrying his mother.
This raises an interesting problem for Christians, does God hold us accountable for unintentional sin? Like Oedipus, are we exempt from the guilt of a sin unknowingly committed or do we still bear the guilt?
Leviticus appears to provide a very clear cut answer. In 5:17 the law says, “If anyone sins, doing any of the things that by the Lord’s commandments ought not to be done, though he did not know it, then realizes his guilt, he shall bear his iniquity.”
This verse seems to say that even if you sin unintentionally that you still bear your guilt. In other words, it’s still sin. This brings up an interesting idea for if this is true, then sin does not require volition, or a desire to sin. I used to define sin as “willful disobedience against God”, but if Leviticus is to be believed then sin does not require a will. This is somewhat of a scary thought, for if we don’t have to be willing ourselves to sin then how can we avoid it. If we think we are telling the truth but then find out it is a lie, we are still held guilty for our lie. Even though we had every intention of telling the truth and not sinning. We can still be sinning even when we do all we can to honor God.
I understand the fact that God is holy and cannot allow unholiness, but this just does not make sense to me. Why does God hold us accountable for sins we did not mean to commit, and not just by negligence for not knowing that murder is sin is simply a lack of seeking truth, but when we seek to honor God by telling the truth only to discover it’s a lie and then be caught in sin?
A girl in my group, Megan, said that if we truly love God that we would want to repent even if we had no idea that we were in sin. I agree with her wholeheartedly, but I’m still confused. So I’m looking more into sin…and what it is exactly.
I’d also love to hear what others think about this problem. Hearing from you all always helps the truth seem more clear!
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Swinging...
Back and forth
...............................Falling fast
.............................................Again I fly
.............................................Feet scraping ground
..................................Rope goes slack
...............Air rushes behind
Forth and back
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Three Words
I love you. How often have you said that phrase and not meant a thing by it? Or, tried to say something so deep within your soul that words could never express it? What is love? Is it a feeling or an action? Perhaps both?
Living in this world we are surrounded by false illusions of love. The movies tell us that true love is found in the lips and body of your lover. Even the films that try to tell us to look beyond appearances always end in the 'ugly' girl being kissed passionately. The true sign of love is not being able to keep your hands to yourself. Sadly, this is not limited to films. Everywhere you look, there are boyfriends with their girlfriends who think that physical affection is the only part of love. They say I love you...and mean I want what you can give me.
Then, there is the other extreme. Husbands who batter their wives and children. Women who betray the trust of their families. Just as dangerous are the subtle vices of lovelessness...apathy, disregard, self-centeredness. The family that sees only themselves and desires nothing for the other people in their lives. Who say I love you...but mean nothing at all.
Where then is love? Clearly it is not in the two situations above...but how can we express true love? By being selfless. The center of our cultures problems with love is wrapped in ourselves. We look after our own desires, our own advancement, our own place. In doing so we end up either seeking love for what it can give to us...or abandoning the idea of loving someone altogether. The simple act of sacrifice is what love truly is. It is the loving wife of fifty years who day after day walks to the nursing home where her husband is dying but by her sacrifice, not alone. It is the mother and father who pour every dollar of their two jobs into the hospital bills of their child. It is the friend who refuses to give up even when it seems like to love anymore would too much pain to bear. It is even something as simple as walking with the girl next door and laughing together as you listen to her talk about her crazy uncle back home. The focus of love is not self. It is outward. It is Christ dying on the cross. It is God losing his beloved son. If we truly give of ourselves to others then I love you will mean all that it is meant to mean....and more.
Friday, October 19, 2007
On Greek and Hebrew Thought....
The Greeks and the Hebrews had very different ways of looking at life and how a thing can be known. This is a concept that I have had thrown at me in Torrey and have been trying to wade through in the midst of reading Plato and other Greek books. For the Greeks, you can only know something once you have fully reasoned it out and comprehended it completely . Knowledge and wisdom are gained through reason and the intellect, the mind is glorified as the only way to truth. While there is great merit to the way the Greeks view the world (certainly I would not be in a school that so exalts it if I did not believe that we ought to understand and use this worldview) the Greek view of knowledge is not the Biblical one.
The Bible is written from a Hebrew worldview and therefore contains a very different view of knowing. For the Hebrew mind, the spirit/soul is the essence of knowing something. If a person can place an idea or a truth into their hearts and truly live it out, then they know it. If that knowledge is not transforming your heart, then you don't truly know it. This is important because the reason can never understand the fullness of God. He is too great, too all-inclusive to be understood by something so small human reason.It seems then that this view is in sharp contradiction to the Greek worldview. The Hebrew mind uses reason, but not as the ultimate means for knowledge, while the Greeks worship reason as the source of all knowledge if not even human goodness. The Bible calls us to pursue transformation, not just information. God wants us to have changed and transformed hearts, not intellectual trophies. However, Greek thought does have its place. The training of the mind is vital to our spiritual growth. As we learn to discipline out minds we can then apply similar principles to other parts of our lives. Also, God has given us the gifts of reason and intellect, it would be a slap in the face of our creator not to use them to the full potential for which God gave them to us.
So where, then, does this leave us? Which worldview do we choose? I would suggest that there is not actually a choice to be made. I believe that we need to adopt an overarching Hebrew mindset and seek not just information but transformation. Yet in the midst of this way of thinking, we need to apply Greek thought to certain areas of our lives and then apply the truths we learn through reason to our lives and hide them in our hearts so that God can use them to change our lives.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
