"God has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim freedom for the captives and release from darkness for the prisoners, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor and the day of vengence of our God, to comfort all who mourn and provide for those who grieve in Zion- to bestow on them a crown of beauty instead of ashes, the oil of gladness instead of mourning, and a garment of praise instead of a spirit of despair. They will be called oaks of righteousness, a planting of the Lord for the display of his splendor..." Isaiah 61.1-3
I want to be a tree. I want to bind up the brokenhearted, proclaim freedom for the captives, bring gladness and light to the people God has put in my life.
There are these times when we are just dry and feeble, we can't see God and don't qutie understand where we are, much less the next step. And we wonder, why? Why this, why me? What is the purpose in suffering? I think God wants to make us into trees.
What is it that makes trees such a great metaphor? What drives Jesus himself to say "I am the vine and you are the branches" (John 15)? I think it has to do with endurance. I remember being a little kid and being shocked to find out that the trees around my yard were 50, 60, 80 years old. Trees remain. Trees go through countless season changes, storms and disasters and yet, they endure. They endure and, in fact, they grow stronger over time. They grow tall and stout and their branches extend further and further. They provide shade, shelter, and fruit.
God wants us to be trees. He wants us to withstand trials, dry seasons and storms and grow stronger and more adaptable because of them. He wants us to grow fruit and provide nourishment and life for people who are hungry and dilapidated. He wants us to "rejoice in suffering because we know that suffering produces endurance and endurance produces character and character produces hope." He wants us to provide shade for people when the sun is blasting away at their lives and they themselves are restless and dried up. God desires for the trials in our life to draw us closer and more tightly connected to the "vine", to him and to his strength, and so to grow that we might give restoration and hope to others.
I pray that as you endure, that you would not be easily shaken and blown off course but that you would remain as a tree. God will grow us, he longs to.
"They will be my people and I will be their God...I will rejoice in doing them good and will assuredly plant them in this land with all my heart and soul." Jeremiah 38.41
Monday, June 28, 2010
Am I really a Christian?
Just thinkin....hope this note doesn't come off harsh...just thoughts...I love the church and fellow Christians and I don't consider myself better....just thinkin.
When were you saved?
-This seems a problematic question....and it reflects many issues with the system. Is every person in a category of saved and not-saved to such a degree that a person is made to have one “testimony” (singular) and some sort of evidence for their salvation? Or is there some sort of continuum, a process-faith that's full of many, momentary encounters with God and with the truth of the gospel?
-This whole idea causes so much panic. Teenagers go to camp year after year and “re-commit” their lives year after year after being questioned rigorously about their moment of salvation, causing them to dig deep within themselves and put their “salvation experience” to the litmus test. There is almost this implicit idea that if you were saved you’d know it completely without doubt or question and if you don’t know it, then maybe you’re not saved, maybe that moment didn’t happen like you thought it did. Maybe you need to 'really' be saved.
Division and Judgment
-This notion of being saved causes a divide in the way we view people. People are no longer just people, they are Christians and non. Even within the Body this arises to the effect that some people truly are saved and others, well, we’re not really sure and we have to “pray for Tim.” Outside of the Body is even worse. We categorize people and squeeze them into a spot. It affects the way we speak, the way we act, the places we go with this person and the amount of ourselves we share with this person.
-People are terribly afraid of “talking about God” with their lost friends. They can’t bring themselves to speak about the one thing that is supposed to mean the most to them. Is this because they are terrible Christians and don’t really love Jesus or is it possibly due to this divide that we, as the church, place upon people. Sure, we love everyone. I’m not challenging that. But, is the way in which we express that love, the most loving. Shouldn’t we instead be willing to treat everyone the equal. Equally created, equally struggling and questioning, equally trying to live the best life possible, equally not knowing fully the deep complexities of God. Whether its Pastor Dave or our atheist friend Jim and all the Christians and others caught in between. What if Jim is really searching for God and wonders why, if God's so important, no one talks about his importance, not even the church (to his face)? Or, what if our buddy Steve that we sit next to in church has heard enough of the religious jabber and is about ready to free-fall and leave the faith, but we continue to preach and talk to him as if nothing else mattered? So, we don't talk to Jim about God because we don't want to offend him or rehearse the same "you're a sinner and Jesus died" speech that he's heard a thousand times as an American. And whether in church or at the grocery store or at a card game, we talk nothing but Jesus stuff with Steve and treat him as though he ought to understand and be excited about engaging in dialogue about his savior every moment...when really he's disenchanted and wants to be treated like a real person instead of a "Christian". What if we instead just treated people as people no matter where they are in realtion to Christianity and spoke of God as the God of everything, every circumstance and every reality? God can talk sports and doctrine, he's just that cool.
-At least we accept people and don’t try to convert them. Sure, at least our relevant, accepting church is no longer accused of the exclusivity and fire-and-brimstone interactions; we don’t shove our beliefs down our friends’ throats. Are we then better than our predecessors or perhaps we struggle in a different way? Perhaps our struggle is extremely similar. They put people in categories and persecuted them, we put them in those same categories and then decide which ones are more deserving of what part of us. We talk naked chicks with Jim because he’s an atheist and it shows that we’re not a Christian zealot and then we talk doctrine with Pastor Dave because that’s what he likes to talk about, but we’d never share our interest in Hockey with him because he’s in the religious category. Are we really any more loving? Are we truly loving either of those two?
-What about our big churches these days? Have we finally evolved to the point where we understand the market and know how to advertise? Have we finally found our target audience and can now start selling Top 20 CD’s till the cows come home? Is there a problem here? What if I, you, millions don’t fit this “target audience”? What if I’m not reached by pop rock, cool toys, quick meditations on life, and a room full of Izods and flip flops? Am I screwed out of this kingdom deal? I feel like this is the message that our 'corporate' church is projecting loud and proud. Then pastors ask, why is there no diversity? Why can’t we reach the unlovable? Why is it only re-converted Christians and soccer moms coming to the baptisms?
Alter calls
- What is the “gospel”? Is it the 5 minute shpeel that starts with an unexpected baby and ends with a bloody tree and an empty tomb? Isn’t the gospel supposed to be the whole of the Christian faith? Isn’t it unquantifiable, expansive and mysterious? Does the gospel encompass every truth claim ever or is it simply a slice of the pie? Does it have to start with baby Jesus being vomited on by donkeys or can it start in a bar, when we were wasted and watching strippers and God awakened us for the first time, the first of many times?
- What is it about the gospel that attracts so many 3 line prayers about wanting to hold Jesus’ hand and tickle his belly? Why is it always followed by this infamous “alter call”? Did Jesus, Peter, and Paul do these (maybe)? Why do we feel it so necessary to reel people in after sharing this divinely-mandated truth? Are we afraid that somehow theyre going to run away and it will be all our fault? Are we scared or faithful? Do we trust the sovereignty of God or our ability to talk about it? Does God call people or do we? Is an alter call a necessary part of a healthy church, a Godly pastor? Or, is it something we've created and devlops all sorts of relgiosity from....something that has become an entity of tradition that has to stay because...instead of something virbrant with purpose and authenticity? Is it really this emotionally charged moment where a person is walked through a general and impersonal prayer from a distant stage that creates a regenerated, saved spirit within a person or is a series of lived out prayer and experiences that a person goes through alone with God and corporately with close friends and eventaully a church body that grows salvation within a person? I'm not questioning the idea of momentary salvation as much as the idea of the alter call and what positive purpose it holds in our church. Can a pastor never speak an alter call or a sinner's prayer and still invite people to know God through speaking the truth of the gospel each and every sermon? Should salvation be treated as an event or a lifestyle? (or both)
A solution, a story, real life
- Maybe we need to stop this concept dead in its tracks. Maybe all people everywhere need to be loved with the open arms of Christ, such that we shed all barriers and do life with each and every person in ours. Maybe we, as the church, need to step up to bat and live the gospel instead of making it a program, a speaker, a checklist, a fairy tale. I think we’re all on a journey. There is no end target. Maybe God wants to meet us here, now, today and let tomorrow and yesterday worry about themselves. Maybe God wants to meet the church, here, now, today. Maybe it’s not our job to program and plan, but rather to seek and wait, to rest. Maybe we need to shed preconceptions and boundaries and truly walk in faith, loving faith. Maybe we don’t have to follow paradigms that work and traditions that hold, but rather live in the moment and allow God to live with us. Maybe we shouldn’t be afraid of doubt and questions, of not having everything crystallized into a 10 point vision and mission statement with all the tacked-on do’s and don’ts. Maybe our only responsibility as the church visible is to listen, wait, and watch as God works through us. Maybe we should question and be hesitant to accept a short answer. Maybe God’s vision and mission is a story. Maybe the gospel is all of existence through God’s eyes. Maybe the gospel is different to every person. Maybe it’s a new and vibrant answer every day. Maybe the gospel is a process…salvation might be a process. Maybe we need change.
When were you saved?
-This seems a problematic question....and it reflects many issues with the system. Is every person in a category of saved and not-saved to such a degree that a person is made to have one “testimony” (singular) and some sort of evidence for their salvation? Or is there some sort of continuum, a process-faith that's full of many, momentary encounters with God and with the truth of the gospel?
-This whole idea causes so much panic. Teenagers go to camp year after year and “re-commit” their lives year after year after being questioned rigorously about their moment of salvation, causing them to dig deep within themselves and put their “salvation experience” to the litmus test. There is almost this implicit idea that if you were saved you’d know it completely without doubt or question and if you don’t know it, then maybe you’re not saved, maybe that moment didn’t happen like you thought it did. Maybe you need to 'really' be saved.
Division and Judgment
-This notion of being saved causes a divide in the way we view people. People are no longer just people, they are Christians and non. Even within the Body this arises to the effect that some people truly are saved and others, well, we’re not really sure and we have to “pray for Tim.” Outside of the Body is even worse. We categorize people and squeeze them into a spot. It affects the way we speak, the way we act, the places we go with this person and the amount of ourselves we share with this person.
-People are terribly afraid of “talking about God” with their lost friends. They can’t bring themselves to speak about the one thing that is supposed to mean the most to them. Is this because they are terrible Christians and don’t really love Jesus or is it possibly due to this divide that we, as the church, place upon people. Sure, we love everyone. I’m not challenging that. But, is the way in which we express that love, the most loving. Shouldn’t we instead be willing to treat everyone the equal. Equally created, equally struggling and questioning, equally trying to live the best life possible, equally not knowing fully the deep complexities of God. Whether its Pastor Dave or our atheist friend Jim and all the Christians and others caught in between. What if Jim is really searching for God and wonders why, if God's so important, no one talks about his importance, not even the church (to his face)? Or, what if our buddy Steve that we sit next to in church has heard enough of the religious jabber and is about ready to free-fall and leave the faith, but we continue to preach and talk to him as if nothing else mattered? So, we don't talk to Jim about God because we don't want to offend him or rehearse the same "you're a sinner and Jesus died" speech that he's heard a thousand times as an American. And whether in church or at the grocery store or at a card game, we talk nothing but Jesus stuff with Steve and treat him as though he ought to understand and be excited about engaging in dialogue about his savior every moment...when really he's disenchanted and wants to be treated like a real person instead of a "Christian". What if we instead just treated people as people no matter where they are in realtion to Christianity and spoke of God as the God of everything, every circumstance and every reality? God can talk sports and doctrine, he's just that cool.
-At least we accept people and don’t try to convert them. Sure, at least our relevant, accepting church is no longer accused of the exclusivity and fire-and-brimstone interactions; we don’t shove our beliefs down our friends’ throats. Are we then better than our predecessors or perhaps we struggle in a different way? Perhaps our struggle is extremely similar. They put people in categories and persecuted them, we put them in those same categories and then decide which ones are more deserving of what part of us. We talk naked chicks with Jim because he’s an atheist and it shows that we’re not a Christian zealot and then we talk doctrine with Pastor Dave because that’s what he likes to talk about, but we’d never share our interest in Hockey with him because he’s in the religious category. Are we really any more loving? Are we truly loving either of those two?
-What about our big churches these days? Have we finally evolved to the point where we understand the market and know how to advertise? Have we finally found our target audience and can now start selling Top 20 CD’s till the cows come home? Is there a problem here? What if I, you, millions don’t fit this “target audience”? What if I’m not reached by pop rock, cool toys, quick meditations on life, and a room full of Izods and flip flops? Am I screwed out of this kingdom deal? I feel like this is the message that our 'corporate' church is projecting loud and proud. Then pastors ask, why is there no diversity? Why can’t we reach the unlovable? Why is it only re-converted Christians and soccer moms coming to the baptisms?
Alter calls
- What is the “gospel”? Is it the 5 minute shpeel that starts with an unexpected baby and ends with a bloody tree and an empty tomb? Isn’t the gospel supposed to be the whole of the Christian faith? Isn’t it unquantifiable, expansive and mysterious? Does the gospel encompass every truth claim ever or is it simply a slice of the pie? Does it have to start with baby Jesus being vomited on by donkeys or can it start in a bar, when we were wasted and watching strippers and God awakened us for the first time, the first of many times?
- What is it about the gospel that attracts so many 3 line prayers about wanting to hold Jesus’ hand and tickle his belly? Why is it always followed by this infamous “alter call”? Did Jesus, Peter, and Paul do these (maybe)? Why do we feel it so necessary to reel people in after sharing this divinely-mandated truth? Are we afraid that somehow theyre going to run away and it will be all our fault? Are we scared or faithful? Do we trust the sovereignty of God or our ability to talk about it? Does God call people or do we? Is an alter call a necessary part of a healthy church, a Godly pastor? Or, is it something we've created and devlops all sorts of relgiosity from....something that has become an entity of tradition that has to stay because...instead of something virbrant with purpose and authenticity? Is it really this emotionally charged moment where a person is walked through a general and impersonal prayer from a distant stage that creates a regenerated, saved spirit within a person or is a series of lived out prayer and experiences that a person goes through alone with God and corporately with close friends and eventaully a church body that grows salvation within a person? I'm not questioning the idea of momentary salvation as much as the idea of the alter call and what positive purpose it holds in our church. Can a pastor never speak an alter call or a sinner's prayer and still invite people to know God through speaking the truth of the gospel each and every sermon? Should salvation be treated as an event or a lifestyle? (or both)
A solution, a story, real life
- Maybe we need to stop this concept dead in its tracks. Maybe all people everywhere need to be loved with the open arms of Christ, such that we shed all barriers and do life with each and every person in ours. Maybe we, as the church, need to step up to bat and live the gospel instead of making it a program, a speaker, a checklist, a fairy tale. I think we’re all on a journey. There is no end target. Maybe God wants to meet us here, now, today and let tomorrow and yesterday worry about themselves. Maybe God wants to meet the church, here, now, today. Maybe it’s not our job to program and plan, but rather to seek and wait, to rest. Maybe we need to shed preconceptions and boundaries and truly walk in faith, loving faith. Maybe we don’t have to follow paradigms that work and traditions that hold, but rather live in the moment and allow God to live with us. Maybe we shouldn’t be afraid of doubt and questions, of not having everything crystallized into a 10 point vision and mission statement with all the tacked-on do’s and don’ts. Maybe our only responsibility as the church visible is to listen, wait, and watch as God works through us. Maybe we should question and be hesitant to accept a short answer. Maybe God’s vision and mission is a story. Maybe the gospel is all of existence through God’s eyes. Maybe the gospel is different to every person. Maybe it’s a new and vibrant answer every day. Maybe the gospel is a process…salvation might be a process. Maybe we need change.
The Natural
What does the word "natural" mean? What do we intend when we speak of human "nature" or when we say that "it was in his nature to act this way?" When we discuss environmental issues and the like we talk about nature, nature infringed upon by civilization, unnatural forces and substances. We have the notion that nature is something original, something left untampered. Trees are not by nature, paper. Dirt, not by nature buildings. Stones, not weapons. Humans...?
Are we natural? In other words, is the collection of traits and attitudes that make up "me", really me? Maybe. Was there a "me" that once existed but has been tarnished by societal influences? Is the true, natural "me" intangible? Is the me that I conceptualize, really me, or is that a false view of reality?
Extremists on one side would say, "I am fully natural and should celebrate this nature by living out each and every emotion, desire and action that I encounter." This view seems beautiful at first glance, because there really is this beauty of humanity, this beauty of nature that exudes and flourishes all around us. How can one deny the deeply-laden glory of the arts we have created, the music, the dance, the poetry, visual pieces, philosophy? The tears that are had over lyric and verse; do they not attest to the power of human passion? How about the depth of human interaction; love, union, joy? Is the budding of a rose any more radient than the first-kiss of lovers? There truly is a magnificient rhythm within this human soul, whether wrought through the labor of social justice campaigns, the movement of a skateboard along a rail, the beat of a snare, stroke of a brush, ink on a notebook canvas, words spoken in privacy, or in a silent walk through a crowded forest.
But, what about the evil that seems to pervade all the more? What about the mass-murderings, war, slavery, poverty, drug-addictions and alcoholism, bigotry? How can I celebrate the "natural" when it is so full of dirt? Certainly there are campaigns for a celebration of the natural in moderation with a deep conviction for compassion and social-uprightness...but, how are those even determined? How is pro-social behavior or compassion drawn from the grayness of human morality? How do we do what feels right when we've more than determined, sociologically, anthropologically, religiously, that those feelings fluxuate relatively, subjectively? What about those situations where you have to decide between acting "compassionately" or acting "loving", where what is "good" isn't necessarily best? Plus, is it not the action but the internal patterns that really matter? Are we to believe that as long as we act in accordance with these ideals that we are in the right or is there a sense that intention matters? Is not intention a part of morality? If so, then are not the hateful musings, bitterness, deceit, envy...are not they too broken? If this is "human nature", then should we really be celebrating it? Is it worth esteem? Maybe.
Then, of course, there's the other extremists. We are told that human nature is entirely evil and that there is no good. Because of "original sin" we are completely incapable of any good whatsoever. Again, this is easy enough to see with the ethnic cleansings, gang violence...it's easy to see that human society, left unmoderated, will self-destruct. Without some sort of guide, some hint of moral seasoning, we tend to be given over to a great sense of selfishness at the complete expense of everyone and everything else. However, this mode of thinking doesn't satisfy the commonsensical view that sees goodness throughout humanity. Anyone can tell that humans are more than capable of good and, in fact, many times these are wrought by religiously-unafilliated means. So, to say that there is no trace of good in humanity, to say that everything and everyone without the religious tag on it is evil, seems silly.
So, is there a "natural" in humanity? The Buddhists solve this issue by pretty much saying, well, no. There is no natural, there's no selfhood. It's an illusion. Therefore, making any kind of graspings at a nature is deceptive and false. In fact, they go further to say, it is suffering...that evil and disturbing emotions corrupt our thinking to see a selfhood of phenomena. Hmmmm. Maybe.
What about this...what if there is a nature...what if there was a nature but it died? What if it was originally 100% glorious and, therefore 100% worthy of being celebrated and enjoyed? And, what if the good that we so blatently see in modern culture is but faint memories, whispers of a past of radience and perfection? And the evil, what if that's due to the smell of the decaying corpse that we hold on to so tightly because it seems the only thing tangible and real? So, it's both. Human nature is both gloriously beautiful and terribly awry.
Meditate on this with me for a moment:
"Set your minds on things above, not on earthly things. For you died and your life is now hidden with Christ in God. When Christ, who is your life appears, then you also will appear with him in glory." Colossians 3.2-4
Is it possible that there is an identity that was created for celebration and joy but that it has died? Does that explain the world we live in? That we are neither ashes, nor flames...but some mixture of both? Could it be that God, a being with an indispensible love for humanity, creation, has decided to gift it with remnants and memories of a glorious identity? What purpose would this serve? Well, it would let us retain some measure of beauty and find joy and fulfillment out of life. It would let us create and be as we were intended to be. But, because of the brokenness, it would leave us hungry for more. It would have us see the disparity between the two and seek out a wholeness and peace.
Maybe what we percieve to be natural, the here and now, our ligaments, marrow, flesh, our emotions, maybe those are not the truly "natural" and so appeals to human nature would, then, be empty. Not that there is no human nature....but that it died. It died at a point called "the fall", when humankind decided that it no longer needed the wisdom of something bigger than itself. It looked inward upon itself and realized such a glorious character, that it found better solace in self-trust, than in God-trust...it found truth in what seemed good rather than what they had been told was good...a shift from dependence and trust to independence and self-reliance. So, perfection was not based upon independent moral living, but upon dependant trust and love. And, once humankind refused that, there was a fall and a brokenness.
With this logic, Buddhism and similar worldviews that see human nature as being a falsity and a non-existent, would align directly with Christianity. If selfhood had died and stayed dead with "the fall", then we would not ever have any hope for a future self, a reconciliation and wholeness, a reunion of human body with human Nature. We'd be caught in a cycle of hungering for something more, something beyond the limits of our own self, with no reprieve, no end.
This isn't the view of Christianity though, is it? There is a self in Christianity. But, it's not here, it's not visible, it's not the collection of Troy experiences, traits and desires. The dead self has been brought to life, the fallen identity has been raised. Years ago, a light entered the world to abolish the darkness. Because Jesus the Christ came died and, by dying, put to death the evil and brokenness of humanity, the identity we once had as "fallen" is no longer available. No, because of the cross of Christ, there has been a cancellation of "the fall". Not only was there a death, but Jesus raised from death. In this symbolic and literal rising, because of the ressurection, there is not only a death of "fallen nature", this false nature that we have been carrying around for centuries, but there is a ressurection of the glorious nature that died at the fall. The glorious nature, the original nature, the true nature of humanity that died with humankind's fall into self-dependence and the glorification of human logic over divine knowledge....that nature has arisen. It is alive. So, humankind is no longer without hope of ever regaining identity, because it's alive. Alive in God. Not only that, but there will be a day when we truly embrace that identity and once again celebrate the full beauty of human nature wrought by God.
What, then, should we do? Do we continue living as though this present human nature that we percieve is our full identity and, as such, embrace it and glorify it? Do we condemn it completely? Do we reject the idea of a nature altogether and lose hope in a restoration of true nature? Or, do we, embracing the grace of God in allowing us to retain goodness, traces of a glorious nature, trust God completely to define our true nature and help us decipher it from the false one that 'comes so naturally'? Do we forsake a complete self-reliance for a trust in something beyond our own ability and understanding? Do we live as though our identity has been redeemed and, thusly, look forward to a future glory while maintaining a clear vision for our own agency in creation and restoration on behalf of this saving, creating, restoring God?
Is it possible to reconcile both our current, unfinished nature with our future, glorious nature? To both celebrate humanity and the beauty within all of creation, while holding to a conviction of a greater nature that we could and should be conforming to by looking to and trusting in God and the redemption of Jesus the Christ? To affirm people, arts, philosophies that are not directly "Christian", while maintaining the desire for wholeness and restoration for all of creation? Is that a proper worldview?
Are we natural? In other words, is the collection of traits and attitudes that make up "me", really me? Maybe. Was there a "me" that once existed but has been tarnished by societal influences? Is the true, natural "me" intangible? Is the me that I conceptualize, really me, or is that a false view of reality?
Extremists on one side would say, "I am fully natural and should celebrate this nature by living out each and every emotion, desire and action that I encounter." This view seems beautiful at first glance, because there really is this beauty of humanity, this beauty of nature that exudes and flourishes all around us. How can one deny the deeply-laden glory of the arts we have created, the music, the dance, the poetry, visual pieces, philosophy? The tears that are had over lyric and verse; do they not attest to the power of human passion? How about the depth of human interaction; love, union, joy? Is the budding of a rose any more radient than the first-kiss of lovers? There truly is a magnificient rhythm within this human soul, whether wrought through the labor of social justice campaigns, the movement of a skateboard along a rail, the beat of a snare, stroke of a brush, ink on a notebook canvas, words spoken in privacy, or in a silent walk through a crowded forest.
But, what about the evil that seems to pervade all the more? What about the mass-murderings, war, slavery, poverty, drug-addictions and alcoholism, bigotry? How can I celebrate the "natural" when it is so full of dirt? Certainly there are campaigns for a celebration of the natural in moderation with a deep conviction for compassion and social-uprightness...but, how are those even determined? How is pro-social behavior or compassion drawn from the grayness of human morality? How do we do what feels right when we've more than determined, sociologically, anthropologically, religiously, that those feelings fluxuate relatively, subjectively? What about those situations where you have to decide between acting "compassionately" or acting "loving", where what is "good" isn't necessarily best? Plus, is it not the action but the internal patterns that really matter? Are we to believe that as long as we act in accordance with these ideals that we are in the right or is there a sense that intention matters? Is not intention a part of morality? If so, then are not the hateful musings, bitterness, deceit, envy...are not they too broken? If this is "human nature", then should we really be celebrating it? Is it worth esteem? Maybe.
Then, of course, there's the other extremists. We are told that human nature is entirely evil and that there is no good. Because of "original sin" we are completely incapable of any good whatsoever. Again, this is easy enough to see with the ethnic cleansings, gang violence...it's easy to see that human society, left unmoderated, will self-destruct. Without some sort of guide, some hint of moral seasoning, we tend to be given over to a great sense of selfishness at the complete expense of everyone and everything else. However, this mode of thinking doesn't satisfy the commonsensical view that sees goodness throughout humanity. Anyone can tell that humans are more than capable of good and, in fact, many times these are wrought by religiously-unafilliated means. So, to say that there is no trace of good in humanity, to say that everything and everyone without the religious tag on it is evil, seems silly.
So, is there a "natural" in humanity? The Buddhists solve this issue by pretty much saying, well, no. There is no natural, there's no selfhood. It's an illusion. Therefore, making any kind of graspings at a nature is deceptive and false. In fact, they go further to say, it is suffering...that evil and disturbing emotions corrupt our thinking to see a selfhood of phenomena. Hmmmm. Maybe.
What about this...what if there is a nature...what if there was a nature but it died? What if it was originally 100% glorious and, therefore 100% worthy of being celebrated and enjoyed? And, what if the good that we so blatently see in modern culture is but faint memories, whispers of a past of radience and perfection? And the evil, what if that's due to the smell of the decaying corpse that we hold on to so tightly because it seems the only thing tangible and real? So, it's both. Human nature is both gloriously beautiful and terribly awry.
Meditate on this with me for a moment:
"Set your minds on things above, not on earthly things. For you died and your life is now hidden with Christ in God. When Christ, who is your life appears, then you also will appear with him in glory." Colossians 3.2-4
Is it possible that there is an identity that was created for celebration and joy but that it has died? Does that explain the world we live in? That we are neither ashes, nor flames...but some mixture of both? Could it be that God, a being with an indispensible love for humanity, creation, has decided to gift it with remnants and memories of a glorious identity? What purpose would this serve? Well, it would let us retain some measure of beauty and find joy and fulfillment out of life. It would let us create and be as we were intended to be. But, because of the brokenness, it would leave us hungry for more. It would have us see the disparity between the two and seek out a wholeness and peace.
Maybe what we percieve to be natural, the here and now, our ligaments, marrow, flesh, our emotions, maybe those are not the truly "natural" and so appeals to human nature would, then, be empty. Not that there is no human nature....but that it died. It died at a point called "the fall", when humankind decided that it no longer needed the wisdom of something bigger than itself. It looked inward upon itself and realized such a glorious character, that it found better solace in self-trust, than in God-trust...it found truth in what seemed good rather than what they had been told was good...a shift from dependence and trust to independence and self-reliance. So, perfection was not based upon independent moral living, but upon dependant trust and love. And, once humankind refused that, there was a fall and a brokenness.
With this logic, Buddhism and similar worldviews that see human nature as being a falsity and a non-existent, would align directly with Christianity. If selfhood had died and stayed dead with "the fall", then we would not ever have any hope for a future self, a reconciliation and wholeness, a reunion of human body with human Nature. We'd be caught in a cycle of hungering for something more, something beyond the limits of our own self, with no reprieve, no end.
This isn't the view of Christianity though, is it? There is a self in Christianity. But, it's not here, it's not visible, it's not the collection of Troy experiences, traits and desires. The dead self has been brought to life, the fallen identity has been raised. Years ago, a light entered the world to abolish the darkness. Because Jesus the Christ came died and, by dying, put to death the evil and brokenness of humanity, the identity we once had as "fallen" is no longer available. No, because of the cross of Christ, there has been a cancellation of "the fall". Not only was there a death, but Jesus raised from death. In this symbolic and literal rising, because of the ressurection, there is not only a death of "fallen nature", this false nature that we have been carrying around for centuries, but there is a ressurection of the glorious nature that died at the fall. The glorious nature, the original nature, the true nature of humanity that died with humankind's fall into self-dependence and the glorification of human logic over divine knowledge....that nature has arisen. It is alive. So, humankind is no longer without hope of ever regaining identity, because it's alive. Alive in God. Not only that, but there will be a day when we truly embrace that identity and once again celebrate the full beauty of human nature wrought by God.
What, then, should we do? Do we continue living as though this present human nature that we percieve is our full identity and, as such, embrace it and glorify it? Do we condemn it completely? Do we reject the idea of a nature altogether and lose hope in a restoration of true nature? Or, do we, embracing the grace of God in allowing us to retain goodness, traces of a glorious nature, trust God completely to define our true nature and help us decipher it from the false one that 'comes so naturally'? Do we forsake a complete self-reliance for a trust in something beyond our own ability and understanding? Do we live as though our identity has been redeemed and, thusly, look forward to a future glory while maintaining a clear vision for our own agency in creation and restoration on behalf of this saving, creating, restoring God?
Is it possible to reconcile both our current, unfinished nature with our future, glorious nature? To both celebrate humanity and the beauty within all of creation, while holding to a conviction of a greater nature that we could and should be conforming to by looking to and trusting in God and the redemption of Jesus the Christ? To affirm people, arts, philosophies that are not directly "Christian", while maintaining the desire for wholeness and restoration for all of creation? Is that a proper worldview?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)