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?