There is not one precise definition or understanding of existentialism. There is not even an agreement among existentialists about what it means to an existentialist. Some existentialists have been Christians (Kierkegaard) others have been atheists (Camus). Some have been political conservatives (Dostoevsky) others have been left-wing radicals (Sartre). One thing that unites them all is their reaction against the enlightenment, their reaction against reason. Writers of the Enlightenment said in essence, there is absolute truth that will tell us how to live ethically and how to best order our governments and this truth can be found by use of man’s reason. Existentialists say in effect: there is no truth, there is only you, and what you make the truth.
What do existentialists think of man’s end? They say man has no absolute end. There is no set in stone, pre-determined end or goal for all of mankind. The only end that man has is the end that man chooses to create for himself. Existentialists would disagree with Bentham, Nietzsche, and Freud. They would argue that happiness, power, or sex is not man’s end. However, they would say nothing is man’s end unless a man chooses to make it his end. If a man wants to make happiness, power, or sex his end, that is valid. Sartre wrote ‘we paint our own portraits.’ This means, we do not enter a pre-existing reality, we create our own realities, our own worlds. There is no right or wrong, we choose what is right or wrong and best for ourselves. Music, coin collecting, mugging old woman—any of these may rightly be man’s end, a man only needs to choose it and it will be so for him.
But this philosophy is false. There is an external reality that exists independently from individual men. There is order and absolute ends in nature. Absolute truth exists in the rational field of math and there are moral truths. Therefore one can infer that there is order and an absolute end for man (for we are a part of nature) as well as absolute truth as to how we ought to live.
Everything in nature has an end. The end of an acorn is an oak. The end of a fawn is a stag. The end of a guppy is a fish. The end of an egg is a rooster. Man is a living, breathing, biological entity. As such he is a part of the natural order. Just as the rest of creation has an end, so too, man has an end.
When an object fulfills its end it operates in unity with the rest of creation. The fact that the cosmos are filled with order is testament to the fact that most of creation fulfills its end. Think of if seeds did not grow and become plants (if they did not full their end). There would be no food or homes for animals and no oxygen for man. There would be utter chaos and all life on this planet would quickly die. The fact that there is harmony and order on earth shows that plants and animals live according to their end.
There is only one creature that lives in disharmony with plants, animals, and his own species, that creature is man. Because man does not live in unity and order, we may infer that man is not fulfilling his end.
The three angles of a triangle are equal to two right angels. This is a mathematical truth. It is a rational truth in that one can not easily discern this by observation alone, one must reason with their mind to come to it. This truth will not change from world to world or from time to time; it is a universal and eternal truth. Since there are universal, eternal truths that we can understand by use of our reason in one field of life, it follows that there may be universal, eternal truths that we may discover through reason in other fields of our lives as well.
Can one think of one universal moral truth? How about the fact that it is wrong to kill and torture babies for fun alone? This is an absolute moral fact. There could be no time or place were it would not be wrong to kill babies for fun. Just as the mathematical fact that 2 + 2 = 4 reveals that there is a whole field of mathematical truth this simple demonstration of one moral truth demonstrates that there is a field of morality.
Here is what we have decided. Everything in nature has an end, therefore man, being a part of nature, has an end. When an object fulfills its end it lives in harmony with creation. The fact that man lives in disunity with the rest of creation shows that man is not fulfilling his end. The fact that man can know math shows that man can understand rational truths. In the same way man can rationally discover moral truths. We found a least one universal moral truth. The fact that there is at least one moral truth leads us to the conclusion that there is a field of morality. Morality tells a man how he ought to live. Since man may know morality man may know how he ought to live.
Existentialism is false. There is truth that exists beyond the individual. This truth exists at least in the fields of math and morality. Our premises lead to the conclusion that man has a knowable end, but man is not fulfilling his end.
Friday, February 29, 2008
Thursday, February 28, 2008
The End of Man (Part Eight), Nihilism
Nihil is the Latin word for nothing. Nihilism then is the belief in nothing; nihilists are people who believe in nothing.
Nihilists think that life is a great cosmic tragedy. There is nothing good in life: no love, hope, joy, or happiness only pain, darkness, despair, and fear. There is no end to nor point or purpose to life. It is all random and senseless.
But of course this is all speculation about what nihilists think because true nihilists never write anything. True nihilists never get out of bed. What’s the point? If there is no purpose in life and no lasting goodness, why would one waste their time writing? It is pointless. In fact, the only logical thing to do if one is a nihilist is to commit suicide. If life is pain and sensation ends at death, one should kill themselves. So we have writings by so called nihilists and have people who say they are nihilists, but in reality all true nihilists kill themselves and leave nothing behind.
One cannot live successfully as a nihilist. This proves that nihilism is a false philosophy. In Fathers and Sons Turgenev wrote about a young nihilist named Bazarov. Bazarov claims that he lives for and believes in nothing and is indifferent to death. He pretends not to care about anyone or anything and thinks love is a social convention. He falls in love, but is too late, he is chronically ill. And in death all he can wish for is more life.
We enjoy fine art and good food. Love and friendship are universally celebrated. Yes there is pain and much evil in life, but there is also much good. The nihilists are wrong. There is beauty and purpose in life.
Nihilists think that life is a great cosmic tragedy. There is nothing good in life: no love, hope, joy, or happiness only pain, darkness, despair, and fear. There is no end to nor point or purpose to life. It is all random and senseless.
But of course this is all speculation about what nihilists think because true nihilists never write anything. True nihilists never get out of bed. What’s the point? If there is no purpose in life and no lasting goodness, why would one waste their time writing? It is pointless. In fact, the only logical thing to do if one is a nihilist is to commit suicide. If life is pain and sensation ends at death, one should kill themselves. So we have writings by so called nihilists and have people who say they are nihilists, but in reality all true nihilists kill themselves and leave nothing behind.
One cannot live successfully as a nihilist. This proves that nihilism is a false philosophy. In Fathers and Sons Turgenev wrote about a young nihilist named Bazarov. Bazarov claims that he lives for and believes in nothing and is indifferent to death. He pretends not to care about anyone or anything and thinks love is a social convention. He falls in love, but is too late, he is chronically ill. And in death all he can wish for is more life.
We enjoy fine art and good food. Love and friendship are universally celebrated. Yes there is pain and much evil in life, but there is also much good. The nihilists are wrong. There is beauty and purpose in life.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
The End of Man (Part Seven), Roman Honor
Honor, popularity, fame, achievement: all of these things have the same end, the same goal: to be in the good opinion of other men.
High-schoolers obsess over popularity. Athletes seek to achieve feats unreached by prior generations. Many celebrities and musicians are consumed in their quest for fame. The ancient Greeks and Romans lived first and foremost for honor. To live for the opinion of others is not the end of man, for it enslaves man and prevents him from truly living.
High school is temporary. Athletes and celebrities die and are soon forgotten. We do not remember the dead as other cultures have so the trappings of fame and achievement don’t hold much weight with us. We barely remember Michael Jordon and Princess Diana, let alone Jim Thorpe and Doris Day. Yet there have been cultures where the end of man was viewed as being seen in good standing: the ancient Greeks and Romans.
To the Greeks and Romans honor was the end of man. Life, happiness, wealth, sex: not one of them mattered if a man was dishonored and a man would sacrifice them all for honor. Two stories will demonstrate my point.
In the Greek city-state of Sparta young boys were taught to steal. But it was shameful to get caught stealing. Plutarch tells us that one such young boy stole a fox and hid it under his shirt. He was stopped by another citizen who wanted to talk to him. As the boy stood there the fox began to claw at his stomach. The boy was in immense pain but refused to release the fox or even make a noise; he could not endure the shame of being caught. Eventually the boy fell over dead. He chose to bleed to death in honor, rather than be caught stealing. He was remembered fondly for this act.
Livy tells the story of a brave warrior named Gauis of the Roman Republic. Gauis and two other Romans were to do battle with three Sabine warriors. These six would wage war on behalf of their cities. Whoever won would win their freedom and booty from the other. Gauis won a great victory that day, defeating all three Sabine warriors after his fellow Roman warriors were killed. His sister had been in love with one of the fallen Sabine warriors. During his victorious return to Rome Gauis’ sister began to weep upon hearing of the death of her lover. At this Gauis unsheathed his sword and struck her dead on the spot. She had dared to dishonor him on the day of his great victory by weeping over the death of one of his enemies. This was an expected response to his sister’s act of dishonor.
We must study the past so we may remember that the things we assume are universal values have not been so important by others. Often what we call truth is nothing more than a modern opinion. When modern writers tell us that what we believe is uncontested, we must know that what is has not always been so. Man did not always live primarily for wealth or happiness: there was a time when a man lived proudly in poverty and pain so long as he had honor. Yet, living for honor had many negative aspects, the greatest being its enslaving character.
When one lives for honor they are bound by the expectations of others. They dress, act, talk not how they want to, but how others want them to. They do nothing freely; every action is done with the opinion of others in mind. If a society has good values, a person may do good actions, but these will not be morally good. For a thing to be morally good a person must freely choose it. If one does something, good or bad, out of fear of what others will think, that action is not freely done. One may not divorce because of opinion, go to church because it is expected, and give to charity to impress others. But faithfulness must be freely chosen to be morally good. And how can one have love if they only stay married so others will think good of them? Generosity has no moral meaning if it is done to impress others. We must do these things freely for them to have moral worth and we must be free from the opinions of others in order to act freely.
It is true that we do not live for honor like the Romans did, but we often worry about what others think. We should not do this. Not only does it prevent us from eating, reading, and watching what we like, but it prevents us from doing any good deed. If we only do good deeds out of compulsion, we do no good. And what happens if society has bad values? If we want to fit in we will become bad men.
No, to live for honor is not man’s men for it enslaves man and prevents him from freely living.
High-schoolers obsess over popularity. Athletes seek to achieve feats unreached by prior generations. Many celebrities and musicians are consumed in their quest for fame. The ancient Greeks and Romans lived first and foremost for honor. To live for the opinion of others is not the end of man, for it enslaves man and prevents him from truly living.
High school is temporary. Athletes and celebrities die and are soon forgotten. We do not remember the dead as other cultures have so the trappings of fame and achievement don’t hold much weight with us. We barely remember Michael Jordon and Princess Diana, let alone Jim Thorpe and Doris Day. Yet there have been cultures where the end of man was viewed as being seen in good standing: the ancient Greeks and Romans.
To the Greeks and Romans honor was the end of man. Life, happiness, wealth, sex: not one of them mattered if a man was dishonored and a man would sacrifice them all for honor. Two stories will demonstrate my point.
In the Greek city-state of Sparta young boys were taught to steal. But it was shameful to get caught stealing. Plutarch tells us that one such young boy stole a fox and hid it under his shirt. He was stopped by another citizen who wanted to talk to him. As the boy stood there the fox began to claw at his stomach. The boy was in immense pain but refused to release the fox or even make a noise; he could not endure the shame of being caught. Eventually the boy fell over dead. He chose to bleed to death in honor, rather than be caught stealing. He was remembered fondly for this act.
Livy tells the story of a brave warrior named Gauis of the Roman Republic. Gauis and two other Romans were to do battle with three Sabine warriors. These six would wage war on behalf of their cities. Whoever won would win their freedom and booty from the other. Gauis won a great victory that day, defeating all three Sabine warriors after his fellow Roman warriors were killed. His sister had been in love with one of the fallen Sabine warriors. During his victorious return to Rome Gauis’ sister began to weep upon hearing of the death of her lover. At this Gauis unsheathed his sword and struck her dead on the spot. She had dared to dishonor him on the day of his great victory by weeping over the death of one of his enemies. This was an expected response to his sister’s act of dishonor.
We must study the past so we may remember that the things we assume are universal values have not been so important by others. Often what we call truth is nothing more than a modern opinion. When modern writers tell us that what we believe is uncontested, we must know that what is has not always been so. Man did not always live primarily for wealth or happiness: there was a time when a man lived proudly in poverty and pain so long as he had honor. Yet, living for honor had many negative aspects, the greatest being its enslaving character.
When one lives for honor they are bound by the expectations of others. They dress, act, talk not how they want to, but how others want them to. They do nothing freely; every action is done with the opinion of others in mind. If a society has good values, a person may do good actions, but these will not be morally good. For a thing to be morally good a person must freely choose it. If one does something, good or bad, out of fear of what others will think, that action is not freely done. One may not divorce because of opinion, go to church because it is expected, and give to charity to impress others. But faithfulness must be freely chosen to be morally good. And how can one have love if they only stay married so others will think good of them? Generosity has no moral meaning if it is done to impress others. We must do these things freely for them to have moral worth and we must be free from the opinions of others in order to act freely.
It is true that we do not live for honor like the Romans did, but we often worry about what others think. We should not do this. Not only does it prevent us from eating, reading, and watching what we like, but it prevents us from doing any good deed. If we only do good deeds out of compulsion, we do no good. And what happens if society has bad values? If we want to fit in we will become bad men.
No, to live for honor is not man’s men for it enslaves man and prevents him from freely living.
Monday, February 25, 2008
The End of Man (Part Six), Hobbes and Life
English philosopher Thomas Hobbes believed that life itself was the end of man. He thought the state should be constructed in such a way so as to preserve man’s life. Stability, in the form of protection from internal and external enemies, was viewed by him at the best way to preserve man’s life. A long life lived under dictatorship, where a man had absolutely no freedom, would be to Hobbes preferable than a shorter life lived with both freedom and risk.
To simply live is not the end of man (and by end I mean telos, refer back to the first post in this series if you are not familiar with this term). Hobbes’s understanding is wrong because he wrongly believed that man is only material.
When man is only material (only a finite body) death becomes the last thing and earthly life is viewed in terms of all or nothing. Some like the stoics or Buddhists deny that life is anything. It is merely an illusion or a hardship to be endured. Others like Hobbes think life is all and sacrifice all other values (freedom, equality, love, etc) simply to stay alive.
But one who lives like this is not truly alive. One must not live for life in order to live. How can one experience joy and hope, courage and triumph, love and loss if they are only focused on remaining alive? They will be constantly worried and anxious and live a selfish life in order to secure their life. What type of life is that?
Not only does this false view lead to a loss of enjoyment of life, it leads to a loss of value and morality, which in turn makes life even less secure. If man is simply an accidental, random collection of molecules (only material, only a physical body made by matter that originated in the big bang) what moral duty does man have? Why shouldn’t one random collection of molecules harm another random collection of molecules? If man is just material he has no more value than anything else that is just material (like a slug, a plant, or a rock). If man has no value, there can be no duty to him: there can be no morality.
We see the consequences of this philosophy every day. If there is a collection of atoms within us that happens to be inconvenient to us, we terminate the pregnancy. What value is there in those blobs? Oh wait! They have stem cells, quick, save them! Violent crime is incredible. Barely a week goes by that a person doesn’t walk into a shopping center or a school and shoot a bunch of people. It barely registers with us anymore, we have come to expect it.
Why do people randomly shoot others? I wonder why more people don’t. If life itself is just a cosmic accident and you don’t happen to enjoy it, why not end it and bring down a few with you? If your being ends at death, no one will be able to hold you to account. This is the consequence of the false philosophy of materialism. This lack of value for other humans in fact makes life less secure. Since we don’t value human life it is much easier for us to take it from another.
Hobbes thought that life itself was the end of man. But there is a great paradox in his theory. In trying to secure life, Hobbes’ philosophy loses it. By worrying about death, we cannot enjoy and live life. And if death is our final end, then we are just a collection of material. If we are just a collection of random chemicals, molecules, and electrons, then we have no value. If we have no value there is no morality and nothing inherently wrong with ending the life of another. In trying to elevate life (by making it our goal to preserve it) Hobbes denigrates it and in fact makes our life less secure.
To simply live, this is not the end of man.
To simply live is not the end of man (and by end I mean telos, refer back to the first post in this series if you are not familiar with this term). Hobbes’s understanding is wrong because he wrongly believed that man is only material.
When man is only material (only a finite body) death becomes the last thing and earthly life is viewed in terms of all or nothing. Some like the stoics or Buddhists deny that life is anything. It is merely an illusion or a hardship to be endured. Others like Hobbes think life is all and sacrifice all other values (freedom, equality, love, etc) simply to stay alive.
But one who lives like this is not truly alive. One must not live for life in order to live. How can one experience joy and hope, courage and triumph, love and loss if they are only focused on remaining alive? They will be constantly worried and anxious and live a selfish life in order to secure their life. What type of life is that?
Not only does this false view lead to a loss of enjoyment of life, it leads to a loss of value and morality, which in turn makes life even less secure. If man is simply an accidental, random collection of molecules (only material, only a physical body made by matter that originated in the big bang) what moral duty does man have? Why shouldn’t one random collection of molecules harm another random collection of molecules? If man is just material he has no more value than anything else that is just material (like a slug, a plant, or a rock). If man has no value, there can be no duty to him: there can be no morality.
We see the consequences of this philosophy every day. If there is a collection of atoms within us that happens to be inconvenient to us, we terminate the pregnancy. What value is there in those blobs? Oh wait! They have stem cells, quick, save them! Violent crime is incredible. Barely a week goes by that a person doesn’t walk into a shopping center or a school and shoot a bunch of people. It barely registers with us anymore, we have come to expect it.
Why do people randomly shoot others? I wonder why more people don’t. If life itself is just a cosmic accident and you don’t happen to enjoy it, why not end it and bring down a few with you? If your being ends at death, no one will be able to hold you to account. This is the consequence of the false philosophy of materialism. This lack of value for other humans in fact makes life less secure. Since we don’t value human life it is much easier for us to take it from another.
Hobbes thought that life itself was the end of man. But there is a great paradox in his theory. In trying to secure life, Hobbes’ philosophy loses it. By worrying about death, we cannot enjoy and live life. And if death is our final end, then we are just a collection of material. If we are just a collection of random chemicals, molecules, and electrons, then we have no value. If we have no value there is no morality and nothing inherently wrong with ending the life of another. In trying to elevate life (by making it our goal to preserve it) Hobbes denigrates it and in fact makes our life less secure.
To simply live, this is not the end of man.
Friday, February 22, 2008
The End of Man (Part Five), Marx and Money
Karl Marx, building off of the foundation of Hegel, developed a theory of history. It was a theory of economic determinism; it said in essence: economics determine all. Marx believed that whoever controlled the modes of production controlled society. That is not too controversial. It basically means that whoever controls wealth and resources is on top of a society. However, Marx went further declaring that everything in society is determined by the economic structure. Religion, art, the family structure, government: everything in a society is determined by the economic structure. Money is the mover of man and the shaper of history; it is the end of man.
Why do men want money? Often for power, sex, or happiness—there are obvious ties between Marx and Nietzsche, Freud, and Bentham. The critiques applied to their theories could apply to this theory in parts as well.
Marx is wrong for two reasons. First, man is not primarily motivated by money. And even if man was primarily motivated by money, this would be a modern peculiarity and not a universalizable condition.
Is it true that economic considerations truly have such a hold on mankind that they alone turn the pages of history? One argument in favor of this theory is the motivation behind war. Marxists view war solely as an economic act of self interest. Nations wage war to increase territory, protect colonies or resources, or to open up markets for trade. Just looking at our country’s history Marxists argue that we fought the Mexican-American War to take the South-West, the Spanish-American War to open up trading markets, in Vietnam we continued a colonial war, and the current war in Iraq is being fought for oil. They reduce the cause of every war to economic self interest (greed). They say our Revolutionary War was not fought for liberty, but for the interests of the middle class and the Civil War was not fought to end slavery, but to promote northern industrial interests to the detriment of southern agriculture by means of free trade.
But are economic considerations truly the only cause of war? If men did not agree to fight, there could be no war. But why do individual men choose to fight? It cannot be for simple economic factors. If a man wanted to protect his property a man should leave his nation peacefully with his property. Yet when men do this, we call them cowards. Think of an individual soldier, marching on mile after mile, injured and in the cold. What motivates him to keep going, to keep fighting? Whether it is for glory, honor, freedom, or out of duty, something keeps him going and that something is not reducible to dollars and cents. Sure money motivates some and it has been the cause of some wars, but not all actions are reducible to economic interests and not all wars have been motivated by greed.
Perhaps Marx was mistaken because he failed to consider people outside his culture and time. The pursuit of money may in fact be the dominant motivator of the modern, Western man. But it has not always been this way. Marx overreached and universalized a contemporary cultural trend. Like Bentham and Freud who reduced man’s motivation to happiness or sex, Marx is wrong because he reduces everything to one value. Man is complicated and is motivated by many things. Just because there is a current trend of most men begin motivated by money, sex, or happiness, it does not mean that this is how man has always operated.
What about living for glory or honor? One could argue that these bring with them money, so they support Marx, but I disagree. These are values that exist above and are distinct from the pursuit of money. Many men will endure pain and poverty for things they believe have greater value than pleasure or wealth. Think of Achilles exchanging a long life filled with comfort, ease, and wealth for a short, hard life of glory. Consider Christ dying out of his love for mankind. What do we make of Dostoevsky’s view of the redemptive nature of suffering, or of John Hus and Thomas More who died for their conviction of the truth, or of William Wallace and Nathan Hale who died for the liberty of their countrymen? They were motivated by considerations like honor, love, truth, and liberty. By focusing solely on economic matters Marx failed to consider a number of other values that motivate people. This is a big misunderstanding of human behavior on his part and it is ultimately why his theory fails. Money is not the end of man.
Why do men want money? Often for power, sex, or happiness—there are obvious ties between Marx and Nietzsche, Freud, and Bentham. The critiques applied to their theories could apply to this theory in parts as well.
Marx is wrong for two reasons. First, man is not primarily motivated by money. And even if man was primarily motivated by money, this would be a modern peculiarity and not a universalizable condition.
Is it true that economic considerations truly have such a hold on mankind that they alone turn the pages of history? One argument in favor of this theory is the motivation behind war. Marxists view war solely as an economic act of self interest. Nations wage war to increase territory, protect colonies or resources, or to open up markets for trade. Just looking at our country’s history Marxists argue that we fought the Mexican-American War to take the South-West, the Spanish-American War to open up trading markets, in Vietnam we continued a colonial war, and the current war in Iraq is being fought for oil. They reduce the cause of every war to economic self interest (greed). They say our Revolutionary War was not fought for liberty, but for the interests of the middle class and the Civil War was not fought to end slavery, but to promote northern industrial interests to the detriment of southern agriculture by means of free trade.
But are economic considerations truly the only cause of war? If men did not agree to fight, there could be no war. But why do individual men choose to fight? It cannot be for simple economic factors. If a man wanted to protect his property a man should leave his nation peacefully with his property. Yet when men do this, we call them cowards. Think of an individual soldier, marching on mile after mile, injured and in the cold. What motivates him to keep going, to keep fighting? Whether it is for glory, honor, freedom, or out of duty, something keeps him going and that something is not reducible to dollars and cents. Sure money motivates some and it has been the cause of some wars, but not all actions are reducible to economic interests and not all wars have been motivated by greed.
Perhaps Marx was mistaken because he failed to consider people outside his culture and time. The pursuit of money may in fact be the dominant motivator of the modern, Western man. But it has not always been this way. Marx overreached and universalized a contemporary cultural trend. Like Bentham and Freud who reduced man’s motivation to happiness or sex, Marx is wrong because he reduces everything to one value. Man is complicated and is motivated by many things. Just because there is a current trend of most men begin motivated by money, sex, or happiness, it does not mean that this is how man has always operated.
What about living for glory or honor? One could argue that these bring with them money, so they support Marx, but I disagree. These are values that exist above and are distinct from the pursuit of money. Many men will endure pain and poverty for things they believe have greater value than pleasure or wealth. Think of Achilles exchanging a long life filled with comfort, ease, and wealth for a short, hard life of glory. Consider Christ dying out of his love for mankind. What do we make of Dostoevsky’s view of the redemptive nature of suffering, or of John Hus and Thomas More who died for their conviction of the truth, or of William Wallace and Nathan Hale who died for the liberty of their countrymen? They were motivated by considerations like honor, love, truth, and liberty. By focusing solely on economic matters Marx failed to consider a number of other values that motivate people. This is a big misunderstanding of human behavior on his part and it is ultimately why his theory fails. Money is not the end of man.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
The End of Man (Part 4), Freud and Sex
Freud reduced the whole of human life to human sexuality. He referred to man’s sexual nature and drive as the libido. He believed that the libido was the hidden motivation (whether one realized it or not) behind every decision a man made. He taught that all restrictions on sex are unnatural. In order to live freely a man must completely indulge his sexual appetite. The freedom of sexual indulgence is the goal and end of every man.
Man’s end (telos), his purpose reached through perfect completion, should not destroy man and his relation to his fellow men; rather it should bring unity and health to both the soul and society. Freud is demonstrated to be wrong in the fact that, when followed, his theory produces disorder in both the individual and society as a whole. When a man prioritizes his sexuality and pursues his gratification at all costs he at once brings disorder to his soul and society.
To begin with, consider the effects of sexual indulgence on the soul of an individual. If man is not master of his passions, he will be a slave to them. The indulgence of any passion (including sex) leads to addiction. No one enjoys their addiction. The drunk does not enjoy their drink nor the junkie his drugs. In the same way one addicted to sex becomes unable to enjoy sex. But they don’t realize that they are unable to enjoy sex, they think the problem lies in their partner and not in themselves. So they turn from partner to partner. This constant movement prevents the development of any sort of real commitment or love. They view others as vehicles for their sexual gratification and in doing so come to view themselves as nothing more than objects for the pleasure of others. This false view of human worth and value leads to depression, self hatred, and other mental illnesses.
True love is one of the greatest things man can experience. But it requires loyalty, self-sacrifice, and commitment. These virtues are not compatible with convenience and sexual freedom. In following Freud we’ve abandoned love for sex and ended up with neither. For only in love (the type of love found in a life-long marriage) can one truly enjoy sex. But we’ve abandoned marriage for freedom. In doing that we’ve lost not only the love and loyalty found in marriage but the very thing we have sought after: our freedom. For indulging one’s sexual appetite is not liberating, rather it is enslaving.
Similarly, when men indulge their sexual nature they bring disunity and destruction to society. Consider all the unwanted children and children raised in single parent homes. Think about all the jealousy and hate that exists between husbands/boyfriends and the former husbands and boyfriends of their girl and all the comparison and mistrust that exists between girlfriends/wives and the former girlfriends and wives of their guy. Think of the consequences of divorce on spouses, kids, and extended families. Think of the devaluing and loss of trust that adultery produces. So great is the pain of adultery that if a man or woman catches their spouse in the act, we don’t hold them fully culpable if they kill both parties!
In the United States we spend enough money on pornography to feed, clothe, and shelter every man, woman, and child on the face of this earth. So out of control is our desire for sex that millions across the globe are kidnapped, trafficked, and forced to work as sex slaves. Countless children are abused at the hands of demented men and women.
Our obsession with sex has broken down trust and communities. Platonic friendship is all but extinct; everyone assumes that no one is nice just to be nice, rather they think everyone acts the way they do to get what they want. Billions around the globe invest the majority of their time, thought, and resources into pursuing sex. They don’t consider others, but only how they may be satisfied. They assume others think the same as them. How can trust and friendship operate in such a world?
We’ve lost loyalty, trust, commitment, stability, and love because we’ve listened to Freud. What have we gotten in return? Are people happier? Depression levels are at all time highs. Are people more successful in relationships? The average relationship lasts under two years and the average marriage ends in divorce. Constant change demonstrates unhappiness and an inability to be content. In our selfishness we’ve become so obsessed with finding someone that is compatible with us or someone that completes us that we’ve all but given up on improving ourselves and building character in ourselves that would allow us to be a good partner. How is a relationship between two immature, selfish people supposed to produce anything of value or worth?
Sex is good and can be very enjoyable, but only within proper boundaries. Only when it is coupled with love and commitment and only when it values the other can it become a thing of unity and growth and not disunity and destruction.
Man’s end (telos), his purpose reached through perfect completion, should not destroy man and his relation to his fellow men; rather it should bring unity and health to both the soul and society. Freud is demonstrated to be wrong in the fact that, when followed, his theory produces disorder in both the individual and society as a whole. When a man prioritizes his sexuality and pursues his gratification at all costs he at once brings disorder to his soul and society.
To begin with, consider the effects of sexual indulgence on the soul of an individual. If man is not master of his passions, he will be a slave to them. The indulgence of any passion (including sex) leads to addiction. No one enjoys their addiction. The drunk does not enjoy their drink nor the junkie his drugs. In the same way one addicted to sex becomes unable to enjoy sex. But they don’t realize that they are unable to enjoy sex, they think the problem lies in their partner and not in themselves. So they turn from partner to partner. This constant movement prevents the development of any sort of real commitment or love. They view others as vehicles for their sexual gratification and in doing so come to view themselves as nothing more than objects for the pleasure of others. This false view of human worth and value leads to depression, self hatred, and other mental illnesses.
True love is one of the greatest things man can experience. But it requires loyalty, self-sacrifice, and commitment. These virtues are not compatible with convenience and sexual freedom. In following Freud we’ve abandoned love for sex and ended up with neither. For only in love (the type of love found in a life-long marriage) can one truly enjoy sex. But we’ve abandoned marriage for freedom. In doing that we’ve lost not only the love and loyalty found in marriage but the very thing we have sought after: our freedom. For indulging one’s sexual appetite is not liberating, rather it is enslaving.
Similarly, when men indulge their sexual nature they bring disunity and destruction to society. Consider all the unwanted children and children raised in single parent homes. Think about all the jealousy and hate that exists between husbands/boyfriends and the former husbands and boyfriends of their girl and all the comparison and mistrust that exists between girlfriends/wives and the former girlfriends and wives of their guy. Think of the consequences of divorce on spouses, kids, and extended families. Think of the devaluing and loss of trust that adultery produces. So great is the pain of adultery that if a man or woman catches their spouse in the act, we don’t hold them fully culpable if they kill both parties!
In the United States we spend enough money on pornography to feed, clothe, and shelter every man, woman, and child on the face of this earth. So out of control is our desire for sex that millions across the globe are kidnapped, trafficked, and forced to work as sex slaves. Countless children are abused at the hands of demented men and women.
Our obsession with sex has broken down trust and communities. Platonic friendship is all but extinct; everyone assumes that no one is nice just to be nice, rather they think everyone acts the way they do to get what they want. Billions around the globe invest the majority of their time, thought, and resources into pursuing sex. They don’t consider others, but only how they may be satisfied. They assume others think the same as them. How can trust and friendship operate in such a world?
We’ve lost loyalty, trust, commitment, stability, and love because we’ve listened to Freud. What have we gotten in return? Are people happier? Depression levels are at all time highs. Are people more successful in relationships? The average relationship lasts under two years and the average marriage ends in divorce. Constant change demonstrates unhappiness and an inability to be content. In our selfishness we’ve become so obsessed with finding someone that is compatible with us or someone that completes us that we’ve all but given up on improving ourselves and building character in ourselves that would allow us to be a good partner. How is a relationship between two immature, selfish people supposed to produce anything of value or worth?
Sex is good and can be very enjoyable, but only within proper boundaries. Only when it is coupled with love and commitment and only when it values the other can it become a thing of unity and growth and not disunity and destruction.
Sunday, February 17, 2008
The End of Man (Part Three), Nietzsche and Power.
Above: Ivan IV holding his dying son in his arms.
Power constitutes right. Nature makes it plain that the strong should rule the weak. But Plato and Christianity imposed a Plebian morality (a morality of the weak) upon society so as to restrain the strong. Their notion of equality is false: it is a slave mentality. It makes all men equal, equally slaves. It shackles potential great men from attaining their potential. The truth is that men are not equal. Some men are born to rule, others are born to serve. Only by breaking free from the false morality of Christ and Plato may true freedom emerge.
This freedom will be based on nothing more than power. Justice is the advantage of the strong. Whoever has power determines what is just: might makes right. The attainment of power is the end of man. Thus is the philosophy of Nietzsche.
Nietzsche said Christianity may attempt to explain how men ought to act, but he knows how men really act. We would all be unjust if we could get away with it. He believes that a life of unpunished injustice is the goal of all. And a life of unpunished injustice is only attainable to one with power, therefore power is the end of man. Imagine a man with a ring that gave him all power. How would a man use it? To do good? Of course not, he would use it to his advantage; he would use this power to satisfy all his desires. Every man wishes he had the power that would make him unaccountable so that he could live exactly as he wished. Power then is the central goal and end of every man.
Nietzsche is wrong in claiming that power is the end (telos) of man. First, the conscience of every man prevents him from enjoying the use of power outside of moral controls. In Crime and Punishment the main character, Raskolnikov, attempts to live as Nietzsche says one ought to live. He breaks free from the moral code and robs and murders two women. It was within his power to get away with his crime, but he is unable to enjoy the fruits of his crime. He goes insane with guilt and eventually confesses to the crime.
The author of this novel, Dostoevsky, spent ten years in prison and saw first hand how breaking the moral law harms ones conscience and eventually leads to insanity. Think of people who indulge their power and live completely outside of the moral law like Dahmer or Gein. One ate people and the other made people into furniture. They didn’t kill people because they were insane; rather they went insane because they killed so many people.
History is littered with kings going insane due to their obsession with power. Nero had people burned alive to light his dinner parties, Roman Emperor Caligula thought he was Hercules reincarnated and appointed his horse to the position of counsel of Rome, Bavarian King Ludwig II stuffed his mattress with the mustaches of soldiers and eventually killed himself, and Henry VIII, in paranoid delusion, killed a couple of faithful wives. It should be noted that Nietzsche himself was declared clinically insane the last ten years of his life.
Power in itself, free from all moral considerations, is not the end of man for indulging in power apart from any and all ethical restraints, as history clearly shows, leads to insanity. Every man has a conscience, a moral compass that shows one right and wrong. When man completely ignores this compass his mind breaks down. Power in itself is not the end (in the sense of perfect completion) of man, rather power is the end of man only in the sense that it leads to man’s demise.
Second objection to Nietzsche: the use of power alone is self defeating. What good is power if it is not coupled with wisdom and self control? If one lacks wisdom, but has power, what good does it do them? They may be unwise in the way they use their power and in fact defeat their own goals. Think of a king wanting to reform his country. He may have the power to do so, but if he tries to reform the country on an ad hoc basis, he will make a number of contradicting laws (at one moment raise taxes and the next moment repeal them) and defeat his purpose of reform. Power is not enough. He needs wisdom to show him how to best use his power in order to attain his goals. Power without wisdom is useless.
Similarly a man needs self control to use power productively. For example, a man may want to have sex with a number of women and have the power to make that happen. But if he doesn’t exercise self control his body will wear down and prevent him from indulging himself in the future. Similarly one who indulges their pallet eventually will not be able to enjoy food or use their body to do other things they enjoy (for they will be out of shape and in ill health). Power without self control destroys itself.
Consider the Russian Tsar Ivan IV (better known as Ivan the Terrible). He was an absolute ruler: he had all power and was accountable to none. In arrogance he insulted and struck his daughter-in-law. When his son confronted him he was so outraged that anyone would dare to question his authority that he struck his son dead on the spot. Ivan had the power to do this, but his action was unwise for in killing his son he had killed his only heir. After realizing what he had done, he wept over his action. By using his power apart from self-control he had destroyed his line, a new family would rule Russia after him. His power exercised without self control had destroyed itself.
Power is not the end of man. When exercised without moral restraint it leads to insanity. When exercised without wisdom it is ineffective. And when exercised without self control it destroys itself.
This freedom will be based on nothing more than power. Justice is the advantage of the strong. Whoever has power determines what is just: might makes right. The attainment of power is the end of man. Thus is the philosophy of Nietzsche.
Nietzsche said Christianity may attempt to explain how men ought to act, but he knows how men really act. We would all be unjust if we could get away with it. He believes that a life of unpunished injustice is the goal of all. And a life of unpunished injustice is only attainable to one with power, therefore power is the end of man. Imagine a man with a ring that gave him all power. How would a man use it? To do good? Of course not, he would use it to his advantage; he would use this power to satisfy all his desires. Every man wishes he had the power that would make him unaccountable so that he could live exactly as he wished. Power then is the central goal and end of every man.
Nietzsche is wrong in claiming that power is the end (telos) of man. First, the conscience of every man prevents him from enjoying the use of power outside of moral controls. In Crime and Punishment the main character, Raskolnikov, attempts to live as Nietzsche says one ought to live. He breaks free from the moral code and robs and murders two women. It was within his power to get away with his crime, but he is unable to enjoy the fruits of his crime. He goes insane with guilt and eventually confesses to the crime.
The author of this novel, Dostoevsky, spent ten years in prison and saw first hand how breaking the moral law harms ones conscience and eventually leads to insanity. Think of people who indulge their power and live completely outside of the moral law like Dahmer or Gein. One ate people and the other made people into furniture. They didn’t kill people because they were insane; rather they went insane because they killed so many people.
History is littered with kings going insane due to their obsession with power. Nero had people burned alive to light his dinner parties, Roman Emperor Caligula thought he was Hercules reincarnated and appointed his horse to the position of counsel of Rome, Bavarian King Ludwig II stuffed his mattress with the mustaches of soldiers and eventually killed himself, and Henry VIII, in paranoid delusion, killed a couple of faithful wives. It should be noted that Nietzsche himself was declared clinically insane the last ten years of his life.
Power in itself, free from all moral considerations, is not the end of man for indulging in power apart from any and all ethical restraints, as history clearly shows, leads to insanity. Every man has a conscience, a moral compass that shows one right and wrong. When man completely ignores this compass his mind breaks down. Power in itself is not the end (in the sense of perfect completion) of man, rather power is the end of man only in the sense that it leads to man’s demise.
Second objection to Nietzsche: the use of power alone is self defeating. What good is power if it is not coupled with wisdom and self control? If one lacks wisdom, but has power, what good does it do them? They may be unwise in the way they use their power and in fact defeat their own goals. Think of a king wanting to reform his country. He may have the power to do so, but if he tries to reform the country on an ad hoc basis, he will make a number of contradicting laws (at one moment raise taxes and the next moment repeal them) and defeat his purpose of reform. Power is not enough. He needs wisdom to show him how to best use his power in order to attain his goals. Power without wisdom is useless.
Similarly a man needs self control to use power productively. For example, a man may want to have sex with a number of women and have the power to make that happen. But if he doesn’t exercise self control his body will wear down and prevent him from indulging himself in the future. Similarly one who indulges their pallet eventually will not be able to enjoy food or use their body to do other things they enjoy (for they will be out of shape and in ill health). Power without self control destroys itself.
Consider the Russian Tsar Ivan IV (better known as Ivan the Terrible). He was an absolute ruler: he had all power and was accountable to none. In arrogance he insulted and struck his daughter-in-law. When his son confronted him he was so outraged that anyone would dare to question his authority that he struck his son dead on the spot. Ivan had the power to do this, but his action was unwise for in killing his son he had killed his only heir. After realizing what he had done, he wept over his action. By using his power apart from self-control he had destroyed his line, a new family would rule Russia after him. His power exercised without self control had destroyed itself.
Power is not the end of man. When exercised without moral restraint it leads to insanity. When exercised without wisdom it is ineffective. And when exercised without self control it destroys itself.
Friday, February 15, 2008
The End of Man (Part Two), Bentham and Happiness
To have all one’s desires met, that is happiness and that is the end of man.
Epicurus, a Greek philosopher, was the first to write that happiness is the end of man, though I doubt that he was the first to think it. He said that man was no more than a collection of atoms. Different material from the world (from food, to disease, to sex, to poetry) interacts with us and produce pleasure or pain. Man has no soul; therefore he has no consideration beyond himself. His main concern in life, his end, is only that of promoting his own happiness.
This philosophy was adopted and modernized by the English reformer Jeremy Bentham. Living in a ‘scientific’ age he developed scientific criteria to judge the pureness of pleasure and pain. Bentham thought we should look to seven factors: 1) intensity, 2) duration, 3) certainty, 4) remoteness, 5) fecundity, 6) purity, and 7) extent. We simply add up the good and the bad and the column with more wins—that is the basis of determining the rightness or wrongness of all acts. If something produces more pleasure than pain it is good and moral for the end of man is nothing more than the maximization of pleasure and the reduction of pain.
Why should we do good deeds? Not because people need or deserve them or because mercy is a godly virtue, but because it makes us feel better about ourselves. We are to do good not for others, but for ourselves. Why are we loyal to friends? Because it is needed for friendship and friendship is enjoyable. Why are we faithful in marriage? Because the benefits of marriage outweigh the pain of divorce. But of course, if one can gain by disloyalty or be happier in divorce they should by all means be disloyal or get a divorce.
The first reason this theory fails is because it is logically inconsistent. Bentham says that people are not to be treated as ends in themselves, but rather only as means to another’s personal gratification and happiness. One can argue as Kant did that people are valuable as ends in themselves and therefore it is immoral to treat them as mere means. But one does not need to go that far. Making happiness the end of man is a logical inconsistency for it results in treating man as a means to this end. The inconsistency lies in the fact that man is not happiest when he is treated merely as the means to another’s end. Man is happiest when he is treated as a valuable individual who is an end in himself.
One is not happiest in a world where they are only treated as means to another’s end. Think of slaves and prostitutes, people that exist in systems that treat them entirely as means to another’s happiness. Are they happy? That is doubtful. People are happiest when they are valued and loved as individuals with worth in and of themselves. Consider the happiness of a cherished child to that of an unwanted kid. Or of a wife in a healthy marriage to an aging woman used by a number of men. People are happiest when they are treated as ends and not mere means. Therefore a philosophy that makes the happiness of man the end of man is logically inconsistent for it allows men to treat their fellow man as a means to their personal. But existing in a system like Bentham’s where people are treated as means and not ends does not produce as much happiness as a system where men are treated as valuable individuals who are absolute ends in themselves.
Second, Bentham’s criteria for judging pleasure and pain (intensity, duration, certainty, etc.) is incomplete. Bentham fails to include arguably the most important consideration: purpose. Pain is far easier to endure if it is for noble goal and is far more painful when it is completely arbitrary. Likewise, pleasure loses something when it is for an ignoble purpose. Consider what Plato argues in the Gorgias (476(a)-479(d)). He says that punishment is corrective for the soul and that it is in fact better to suffer for doing good than benefit from wrongdoing.
Third, Bentham’s argument is foolish because results are uncertain. Bentham says that consequences define the morality of an action in the sense that we judge something based off of what it produces. If it produces more happiness than pain it is good, if it produces more pain than happiness it is bad. The goodness or badness of a thing then is judged by what it produces; an action is judged by its consequences. Because consequences define morality one must act with consequences in mind. But consequences are uncertain. How do we know if we’ll be more happy divorced or less happy if we remain loyal to a friend? How do we judge if we’ll be better off obeying our government or not? How can we reason to an uncertain answer? In 1917 I am sure many Russians thought they would be happier under the Soviets than the Romanovs. By 1933 I am sure few felt this way.
How many people regret getting drunk because they got a DUI or having sex because they got an STD? Or getting a divorce or having an abortion? Even though they made these choices so as to maximize their pleasure, they ended up regretting the choices they made. Why do they lament the choices they have made? Because they didn’t realize the consequences their choices would have. The problem with any choice is that it rarely has the intended effect and often has unforeseeable consequences. That is why we cannot base our actions off of intended consequences.
Fourth, even if I am wrong and Bentham is right and men are primarily motivated by happiness, happiness is a subjective notion and it is impossible to put objective criteria on it and make it one’s life goal or purpose. No objective, external phenomenon can make a person happy or sad. Happiness is subjective to the individual; it is a choice of the will. Therefore it is foolish to make its pursuit the end of man. It is unattainable as an ultimate end. One can be happy with little while another may be miserable with much. Who is to say that simple feudal peasants were not happier than we are? Rousseau would say that science and the arts—the advancement of man—leads to a loss of freedom and man was happiest when life was simplest. Does that mean we should return to a primitive social structure? Rousseau may think so, but I reckon that many others would disagree. What makes one happy may make another unhappy so how can a state pursue it for all? It is not an absolute or objective good so it is not pursuable by reason in any way. What makes people happy? Health, power, beauty, fame, wealth: look at celebrities who have all this and more and yet are suicidal and depressed. How can one pursue happiness as an end when the objects of one’s pursuit do not make one happy? One cannot. The fact is nothing has the power to make one happy or unhappy: both are choices.
Fifth, even if the happiness is an attainable end, the pursuit of it prevents us from achieving it. “He who does not find a little enough, will find nothing enough.” Plato said that pursuing and realizing pleasure is like itching an insect bite: the more we scratch it, the more it will it will itch and the more we will need to scratch it. This is the hedonists’ paradox: pursuing happiness prevents one from attaining it. There is a right way and a wrong way to go about getting things. If one forces another to love them they will be unable to receive love, for love must be freely given. In the same way if one pursues happiness, one will be unable to be happy. Those who think that the world is made for our happiness and who pursue it at all costs often become the least happy, while those who think the world is a hard place often end up being the happiest.
Bentham fails. The happiness of man is not the end of man.
Epicurus, a Greek philosopher, was the first to write that happiness is the end of man, though I doubt that he was the first to think it. He said that man was no more than a collection of atoms. Different material from the world (from food, to disease, to sex, to poetry) interacts with us and produce pleasure or pain. Man has no soul; therefore he has no consideration beyond himself. His main concern in life, his end, is only that of promoting his own happiness.
This philosophy was adopted and modernized by the English reformer Jeremy Bentham. Living in a ‘scientific’ age he developed scientific criteria to judge the pureness of pleasure and pain. Bentham thought we should look to seven factors: 1) intensity, 2) duration, 3) certainty, 4) remoteness, 5) fecundity, 6) purity, and 7) extent. We simply add up the good and the bad and the column with more wins—that is the basis of determining the rightness or wrongness of all acts. If something produces more pleasure than pain it is good and moral for the end of man is nothing more than the maximization of pleasure and the reduction of pain.
Why should we do good deeds? Not because people need or deserve them or because mercy is a godly virtue, but because it makes us feel better about ourselves. We are to do good not for others, but for ourselves. Why are we loyal to friends? Because it is needed for friendship and friendship is enjoyable. Why are we faithful in marriage? Because the benefits of marriage outweigh the pain of divorce. But of course, if one can gain by disloyalty or be happier in divorce they should by all means be disloyal or get a divorce.
The first reason this theory fails is because it is logically inconsistent. Bentham says that people are not to be treated as ends in themselves, but rather only as means to another’s personal gratification and happiness. One can argue as Kant did that people are valuable as ends in themselves and therefore it is immoral to treat them as mere means. But one does not need to go that far. Making happiness the end of man is a logical inconsistency for it results in treating man as a means to this end. The inconsistency lies in the fact that man is not happiest when he is treated merely as the means to another’s end. Man is happiest when he is treated as a valuable individual who is an end in himself.
One is not happiest in a world where they are only treated as means to another’s end. Think of slaves and prostitutes, people that exist in systems that treat them entirely as means to another’s happiness. Are they happy? That is doubtful. People are happiest when they are valued and loved as individuals with worth in and of themselves. Consider the happiness of a cherished child to that of an unwanted kid. Or of a wife in a healthy marriage to an aging woman used by a number of men. People are happiest when they are treated as ends and not mere means. Therefore a philosophy that makes the happiness of man the end of man is logically inconsistent for it allows men to treat their fellow man as a means to their personal. But existing in a system like Bentham’s where people are treated as means and not ends does not produce as much happiness as a system where men are treated as valuable individuals who are absolute ends in themselves.
Second, Bentham’s criteria for judging pleasure and pain (intensity, duration, certainty, etc.) is incomplete. Bentham fails to include arguably the most important consideration: purpose. Pain is far easier to endure if it is for noble goal and is far more painful when it is completely arbitrary. Likewise, pleasure loses something when it is for an ignoble purpose. Consider what Plato argues in the Gorgias (476(a)-479(d)). He says that punishment is corrective for the soul and that it is in fact better to suffer for doing good than benefit from wrongdoing.
Third, Bentham’s argument is foolish because results are uncertain. Bentham says that consequences define the morality of an action in the sense that we judge something based off of what it produces. If it produces more happiness than pain it is good, if it produces more pain than happiness it is bad. The goodness or badness of a thing then is judged by what it produces; an action is judged by its consequences. Because consequences define morality one must act with consequences in mind. But consequences are uncertain. How do we know if we’ll be more happy divorced or less happy if we remain loyal to a friend? How do we judge if we’ll be better off obeying our government or not? How can we reason to an uncertain answer? In 1917 I am sure many Russians thought they would be happier under the Soviets than the Romanovs. By 1933 I am sure few felt this way.
How many people regret getting drunk because they got a DUI or having sex because they got an STD? Or getting a divorce or having an abortion? Even though they made these choices so as to maximize their pleasure, they ended up regretting the choices they made. Why do they lament the choices they have made? Because they didn’t realize the consequences their choices would have. The problem with any choice is that it rarely has the intended effect and often has unforeseeable consequences. That is why we cannot base our actions off of intended consequences.
Fourth, even if I am wrong and Bentham is right and men are primarily motivated by happiness, happiness is a subjective notion and it is impossible to put objective criteria on it and make it one’s life goal or purpose. No objective, external phenomenon can make a person happy or sad. Happiness is subjective to the individual; it is a choice of the will. Therefore it is foolish to make its pursuit the end of man. It is unattainable as an ultimate end. One can be happy with little while another may be miserable with much. Who is to say that simple feudal peasants were not happier than we are? Rousseau would say that science and the arts—the advancement of man—leads to a loss of freedom and man was happiest when life was simplest. Does that mean we should return to a primitive social structure? Rousseau may think so, but I reckon that many others would disagree. What makes one happy may make another unhappy so how can a state pursue it for all? It is not an absolute or objective good so it is not pursuable by reason in any way. What makes people happy? Health, power, beauty, fame, wealth: look at celebrities who have all this and more and yet are suicidal and depressed. How can one pursue happiness as an end when the objects of one’s pursuit do not make one happy? One cannot. The fact is nothing has the power to make one happy or unhappy: both are choices.
Fifth, even if the happiness is an attainable end, the pursuit of it prevents us from achieving it. “He who does not find a little enough, will find nothing enough.” Plato said that pursuing and realizing pleasure is like itching an insect bite: the more we scratch it, the more it will it will itch and the more we will need to scratch it. This is the hedonists’ paradox: pursuing happiness prevents one from attaining it. There is a right way and a wrong way to go about getting things. If one forces another to love them they will be unable to receive love, for love must be freely given. In the same way if one pursues happiness, one will be unable to be happy. Those who think that the world is made for our happiness and who pursue it at all costs often become the least happy, while those who think the world is a hard place often end up being the happiest.
Bentham fails. The happiness of man is not the end of man.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
The End of Man (Part One)
What is man’s end? What is mankind’s purpose? When discussing end I have in mind the Greek term “Telos” for which there is no exact English equivalent. Telos involves a process of becoming or ‘unfolding into perfect completion.’ Telos means end in the sense of ‘perfect completion reached through the attainment of one’s ultimate and absolute purpose.’ This is a term of art and at first glance seems complicated, but it is not. Hopefully a couple of analogies will clarify what I mean.
For example the end (or telos) of an acorn is a mature oak tree. After it is planted in the ground an acorn constantly strives towards its end. It only reaches its end, its completion, when it is a fully grown oak. The purpose of an acorn is to become an oak tree. When an acorn is fully grown (perfectly complete, not lacking anything) it is an oak tree. By fulfilling its purpose in becoming an oak tree, an acorn reaches perfect completion.
Physically, a man’s end (his telos, his perfect completion) is adulthood. A person begins as a separate egg and sperm, these combine and their cells multiple creating a baby, the baby grows into toddler, the toddler into a child, and the child into an adult. This process of growth and progression, of becoming an adult, ends around one’s eighteenth year. At that point a man has reached his biological end. He is complete and perfect in the sense that he no longer lacks anything to reach full adulthood.
Man’s biological end is easily observed (just as physical maturation is seen by all in the growth of an acorn into an oak). What is far more difficult to decipher is man’s spiritual end. What end must man attain to reach perfect completion? Men strive towards all sorts of different ends, but what end was man made for? What ultimate purpose must he fulfill to reach his end?
Many men have theorized about this. Bentham said man’s end is happiness, Marx thought it was money, Freud taught that it was indulging one’s libido, Nietzsche believed it was power, Hobbes wrote that it was life itself, Aristotle stated that it was contemplation, the Romans understood it to be honor. Others have said it is freedom, truth, or popularity, while countless others have said that man has no transcendent end.
In this (approximately) ten part series I will survey the great schools of thought that claim to have an answer regarding the end of man. I will show the critical errors that every one of these philosophies contains and why they ultimately fail. I will then critique both the nihilists who say man can have no end and the existentialists who say man has no transcendent end, but may create finite ends of his own. I will conclude the series by showing that man does have an end, and only one end. This end contains man’s absolute purpose, and in it man reaches the perfect completion he was intended to reach. This perfect completion contains the total and complete happiness and satisfaction that man searches for in vain when he pursues other ends.
For example the end (or telos) of an acorn is a mature oak tree. After it is planted in the ground an acorn constantly strives towards its end. It only reaches its end, its completion, when it is a fully grown oak. The purpose of an acorn is to become an oak tree. When an acorn is fully grown (perfectly complete, not lacking anything) it is an oak tree. By fulfilling its purpose in becoming an oak tree, an acorn reaches perfect completion.
Physically, a man’s end (his telos, his perfect completion) is adulthood. A person begins as a separate egg and sperm, these combine and their cells multiple creating a baby, the baby grows into toddler, the toddler into a child, and the child into an adult. This process of growth and progression, of becoming an adult, ends around one’s eighteenth year. At that point a man has reached his biological end. He is complete and perfect in the sense that he no longer lacks anything to reach full adulthood.
Man’s biological end is easily observed (just as physical maturation is seen by all in the growth of an acorn into an oak). What is far more difficult to decipher is man’s spiritual end. What end must man attain to reach perfect completion? Men strive towards all sorts of different ends, but what end was man made for? What ultimate purpose must he fulfill to reach his end?
Many men have theorized about this. Bentham said man’s end is happiness, Marx thought it was money, Freud taught that it was indulging one’s libido, Nietzsche believed it was power, Hobbes wrote that it was life itself, Aristotle stated that it was contemplation, the Romans understood it to be honor. Others have said it is freedom, truth, or popularity, while countless others have said that man has no transcendent end.
In this (approximately) ten part series I will survey the great schools of thought that claim to have an answer regarding the end of man. I will show the critical errors that every one of these philosophies contains and why they ultimately fail. I will then critique both the nihilists who say man can have no end and the existentialists who say man has no transcendent end, but may create finite ends of his own. I will conclude the series by showing that man does have an end, and only one end. This end contains man’s absolute purpose, and in it man reaches the perfect completion he was intended to reach. This perfect completion contains the total and complete happiness and satisfaction that man searches for in vain when he pursues other ends.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Faith and Accusation
The Israelites have just witnessed God perform magnificent signs and wonders. By the miraculous power of His hand He has freed them from the Egyptian Pharaoh—God had liberated the nation from slavery.
On their Exodus out of Egypt the Hebrews camped alongside the Red Sea. At this point Pharaoh decided to pursue them with his army. Exodus 14:10-14 gives an account of this confrontation:
As Pharaoh drew near, the sons of Israel looked, and behold, the Egyptians were marching after them, and they became very frightened; so the sons of Israel cried out to the LORD. Then they said to Moses, "Is it because there were no graves in Egypt that you have taken us away to die in the wilderness? Why have you dealt with us in this way, bringing us out of Egypt? Is this not the word that we spoke to you in Egypt, saying, 'Leave us alone that we may serve the Egyptians'? For it would have been better for us to serve the Egyptians than to die in the wilderness." But Moses said to the people, "Do not fear! Stand by and see the salvation of the LORD which He will accomplish for you today; for the Egyptians whom you have seen today, you will never see them again forever. The LORD will fight for you while you keep silent."
In a moment of trial, how easy is it to respond like the Israelites and accuse God? How hard is it to respond like Moses and wait on God and trust in Him for our deliverance?
When circumstances mount against us and life gets difficult or painful do we turn against God or do we turn to Him? Do we accuse Him of being the source of evil and blame Him for our hardships? Do we impute base motives upon Him? Do we demand an explanation of Him? Demand that he tell us why He allows evil in this world and in our lives?
Or are we like Moses? Are we grounded in the Rock of our Salvation? Do we cling tightly to this foundation in the midst of this storm?
Moses’ faith in God is not ill-founded; when He trusted in God, God delivered. Trials, suffering, evil, and hardship are a part of life. We live in a fallen world and these things constitute the consequences of sin. We cannot control what challenges life will bring against us; we can only control our response. And if we respond rightly these hardships help us to grow in character and faith (James 1: 2-4).
Since we have to endure trials, why not experience the deliverance in God? Only by trusting in God may we see and experience the deliverance of God. ‘The man who doubts is like a wave, blown and tossed by the wind. That man should not expect to receive anything from God.’ (James 1:6+7). When we doubt we don’t mature in faith and character and we prevent God from delivering us.
God invites all of us to enter into His glorious salvation. All who accept this invitation are welcomed just as they. But though God accepts us as we are, He will not allow us to remain unchanged. After being delivered from the slavery of sin, we may be content to be servants in the House of God. But God desires that we be His sons and daughters.
We may not be bothered by our fear, lust, cowardice, ignorance, or selfishness. But God wants us to be mature and complete, not lacking in anything. We were created to wise and strong, loving and courageous, generous and kind. We may want to only give a part of our lives to God, but He won’t settle for anything less than all. He wants us reign with Him as kings and priests and is constantly working in our lives to make us fit for that role.
The transition from slave to son is painful, but necessary. And it occurs primarily through trials. God wants us to love Him when we feel unloved, trust Him when circumstances accuse Him, and learn to rely on Him. These things can only happen when we have reason to doubt His love, when hardships occur that accuse God, and we are placed in a situation that we cannot get ourselves out of. God wants to deliver us by His mighty hand, but in order to do this we need to have our back against a wall (or a sea).
I wonder how often we miss seeing the deliverance of God because we give up at the last moment. How often do we lose faith and accuse God and take matters into our own hands (and thereby prevent Him from intervening) an instant before God was about to act? But there is hope if we head Moses’ advice and stand firm without fear and wait on God. That is the moment we will see and experience the deliverance of God.
On their Exodus out of Egypt the Hebrews camped alongside the Red Sea. At this point Pharaoh decided to pursue them with his army. Exodus 14:10-14 gives an account of this confrontation:
As Pharaoh drew near, the sons of Israel looked, and behold, the Egyptians were marching after them, and they became very frightened; so the sons of Israel cried out to the LORD. Then they said to Moses, "Is it because there were no graves in Egypt that you have taken us away to die in the wilderness? Why have you dealt with us in this way, bringing us out of Egypt? Is this not the word that we spoke to you in Egypt, saying, 'Leave us alone that we may serve the Egyptians'? For it would have been better for us to serve the Egyptians than to die in the wilderness." But Moses said to the people, "Do not fear! Stand by and see the salvation of the LORD which He will accomplish for you today; for the Egyptians whom you have seen today, you will never see them again forever. The LORD will fight for you while you keep silent."
In a moment of trial, how easy is it to respond like the Israelites and accuse God? How hard is it to respond like Moses and wait on God and trust in Him for our deliverance?
When circumstances mount against us and life gets difficult or painful do we turn against God or do we turn to Him? Do we accuse Him of being the source of evil and blame Him for our hardships? Do we impute base motives upon Him? Do we demand an explanation of Him? Demand that he tell us why He allows evil in this world and in our lives?
Or are we like Moses? Are we grounded in the Rock of our Salvation? Do we cling tightly to this foundation in the midst of this storm?
Moses’ faith in God is not ill-founded; when He trusted in God, God delivered. Trials, suffering, evil, and hardship are a part of life. We live in a fallen world and these things constitute the consequences of sin. We cannot control what challenges life will bring against us; we can only control our response. And if we respond rightly these hardships help us to grow in character and faith (James 1: 2-4).
Since we have to endure trials, why not experience the deliverance in God? Only by trusting in God may we see and experience the deliverance of God. ‘The man who doubts is like a wave, blown and tossed by the wind. That man should not expect to receive anything from God.’ (James 1:6+7). When we doubt we don’t mature in faith and character and we prevent God from delivering us.
God invites all of us to enter into His glorious salvation. All who accept this invitation are welcomed just as they. But though God accepts us as we are, He will not allow us to remain unchanged. After being delivered from the slavery of sin, we may be content to be servants in the House of God. But God desires that we be His sons and daughters.
We may not be bothered by our fear, lust, cowardice, ignorance, or selfishness. But God wants us to be mature and complete, not lacking in anything. We were created to wise and strong, loving and courageous, generous and kind. We may want to only give a part of our lives to God, but He won’t settle for anything less than all. He wants us reign with Him as kings and priests and is constantly working in our lives to make us fit for that role.
The transition from slave to son is painful, but necessary. And it occurs primarily through trials. God wants us to love Him when we feel unloved, trust Him when circumstances accuse Him, and learn to rely on Him. These things can only happen when we have reason to doubt His love, when hardships occur that accuse God, and we are placed in a situation that we cannot get ourselves out of. God wants to deliver us by His mighty hand, but in order to do this we need to have our back against a wall (or a sea).
I wonder how often we miss seeing the deliverance of God because we give up at the last moment. How often do we lose faith and accuse God and take matters into our own hands (and thereby prevent Him from intervening) an instant before God was about to act? But there is hope if we head Moses’ advice and stand firm without fear and wait on God. That is the moment we will see and experience the deliverance of God.
Monday, February 11, 2008
A Russian Parable
There once lived a woman who was selfish and mean her entire life. When she died she found herself in Hell. Her guardian angel sought to bring her up to Heaven by any means he could. He asked God if there was any way she might come to Heaven. God asked the angel if there was anything kind she had ever done. The angel replied that she had once given an onion to a poor peasant. God told the angel to visit her in Hell and hold out the onion to her. She was to grab hold of it and if she could keep hold of it the angel could carry her by the onion all the way to Heaven. The angel explained this to the woman and held out the onion to her. The woman grabbed hold and began to be pulled from the lake of fire. As she ascended people began to grab her legs and weigh her down. At once she yelled out at them, “let go, let go, I tell you, this onion in mine. Damn you all and let go, this onion is mine!” The very instant she said this the onion disappeared and the woman fell back into the lake of fire where she will remain for all time.
All of mankind been offered an onion (an escape from the separation from the Holy God that is the natural consequence of our sin); this onion was made available to us through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. But unlike the woman we were not offered salvation because we had given an onion to another (we were not offered salvation because we have done some good deed that merited it), God offers salvation to us because God is good and merciful. Out of His goodness and mercy He made a Way for us out of the pit into which we had gotten ourselves.
Some of us have decided to take hold of the onion God has offered us; we have accepted His gift of salvation. Now that we have done this, what should our response be to those around us?
It is very easy to be like the woman and to want to hold unto this great gift we have been given. Those around us do weigh down on us and it is tempting to want to kick them away. And many have set up exclusive communities where they cloistered themselves off in such a way so as to be free from all that is of and all that are of this world. But the Lord told us we have been given the Light of the world. We are not to hide it, but rather to let it shine for all the earth to see.
It is messy living in this sinful world, but the one who has accepted the onion and really grasped the significance of it will be the first one to want to share their onion with everyone they meet—share it in such a way so that they too may grab hold of the onion offered them. But if one fails to really take hold of the onion offered them or if they fail to understand the importance of the onion, they will keep it only to themselves.
Our actions are determined by our beliefs. We must know the truth so that we may live rightly. The onion offered to us by God is not one of many ways offered out of our predicament, it is the only Way. The onion is offered now to all, but who knows how long the invitation to accept will last. We must live with a sense of urgency. We must live with a conviction that we have the Truth. And we must remember, that this Truth wasn’t given to us so that we may exclude, but rather so that we may draw others in and include them in the Glorious Work of God.
All of mankind been offered an onion (an escape from the separation from the Holy God that is the natural consequence of our sin); this onion was made available to us through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. But unlike the woman we were not offered salvation because we had given an onion to another (we were not offered salvation because we have done some good deed that merited it), God offers salvation to us because God is good and merciful. Out of His goodness and mercy He made a Way for us out of the pit into which we had gotten ourselves.
Some of us have decided to take hold of the onion God has offered us; we have accepted His gift of salvation. Now that we have done this, what should our response be to those around us?
It is very easy to be like the woman and to want to hold unto this great gift we have been given. Those around us do weigh down on us and it is tempting to want to kick them away. And many have set up exclusive communities where they cloistered themselves off in such a way so as to be free from all that is of and all that are of this world. But the Lord told us we have been given the Light of the world. We are not to hide it, but rather to let it shine for all the earth to see.
It is messy living in this sinful world, but the one who has accepted the onion and really grasped the significance of it will be the first one to want to share their onion with everyone they meet—share it in such a way so that they too may grab hold of the onion offered them. But if one fails to really take hold of the onion offered them or if they fail to understand the importance of the onion, they will keep it only to themselves.
Our actions are determined by our beliefs. We must know the truth so that we may live rightly. The onion offered to us by God is not one of many ways offered out of our predicament, it is the only Way. The onion is offered now to all, but who knows how long the invitation to accept will last. We must live with a sense of urgency. We must live with a conviction that we have the Truth. And we must remember, that this Truth wasn’t given to us so that we may exclude, but rather so that we may draw others in and include them in the Glorious Work of God.
Saturday, February 9, 2008
An Incorrect Response to Sin
If we think we can live our life without God, He will let us try. Without God, we are left to our devices. Our own devices leave us helpless, at the mercy of our sin for we cannot break sin’s hold on our lives by our own power.
Think of Benjamin Franklin. He catalogued his sins and methodologically attempted to quit them all. Years later he gave up on this endeavor, frustrated and defeated. As long as a man broods over his wrongs, he will always continue in them.
Sin begets sin. Focusing on sin perpetuates sin. Why is this? I don’t know. Maybe it is because in focusing on sin a person is living in pride, making himself the center of his life. With time his pride grows and demands of him more sins. Or maybe it is not true that a man who focuses on his sins inevitably sins more. Maybe an honest examination of self continually reveals sins that were hidden. That man is not becoming more evil, but only realizing how evil he is. If this examination leads him to the conclusion that he is evil beyond his ability to redeem himself, that man has nearly found the truth. Or maybe this is merely a fact that we can only observe but not explained because it is controlled by spiritual laws beyond our comprehension.
Similarly, in our sin we often perpetuate the very wrongs done against us. Hurt people hurt other people; wronged people wrong others. If one is without God one is without forgiveness. If one is without forgiveness why should one forgive another? And if one is in pain, why should others live in peace? Hurting others then becomes an easy substitution for the peace and forgiveness one needs.
When I consider a man trapped in his sin I picture of a man being swarmed by bugs. If he stands still and tries to swat them one by one he will never be free of them. They are so great he alone cannot defeat them. So long as he focuses on himself and those bugs he will continually be bitten by them.
Some tell us that these bugs themselves constitute enjoyment (hedonists), so we should not worry about them. Our inherited traditions tell us that bugs are bad; once we transcend our mere human conventions we will be able to enjoy these bugs (Nietzsche). Others tell us that bugs are an illusion (Buddhism). In recognizing that they are an illusion, we will be free.
Only Christianity allows a man to escape this swarm of bugs. And there is only one way to escape a swarm of bugs: to move. One must walk or run away from them. As one does this they soon fall away. One can never defeat them, one must leave them. Similarly Christianity tells a man to take his focus off of himself and his sins and put it on God. As he grows closer to God his sins will drop away and his self will be sanctified.
The incorrect response to sin is to focus on sin and try to overcome it on one’s own. That struggle is futile and it will only end in frustration and defeat. Only at looking at something beyond himself (God) can man overcome the struggles raging within himself.
Think of Benjamin Franklin. He catalogued his sins and methodologically attempted to quit them all. Years later he gave up on this endeavor, frustrated and defeated. As long as a man broods over his wrongs, he will always continue in them.
Sin begets sin. Focusing on sin perpetuates sin. Why is this? I don’t know. Maybe it is because in focusing on sin a person is living in pride, making himself the center of his life. With time his pride grows and demands of him more sins. Or maybe it is not true that a man who focuses on his sins inevitably sins more. Maybe an honest examination of self continually reveals sins that were hidden. That man is not becoming more evil, but only realizing how evil he is. If this examination leads him to the conclusion that he is evil beyond his ability to redeem himself, that man has nearly found the truth. Or maybe this is merely a fact that we can only observe but not explained because it is controlled by spiritual laws beyond our comprehension.
Similarly, in our sin we often perpetuate the very wrongs done against us. Hurt people hurt other people; wronged people wrong others. If one is without God one is without forgiveness. If one is without forgiveness why should one forgive another? And if one is in pain, why should others live in peace? Hurting others then becomes an easy substitution for the peace and forgiveness one needs.
When I consider a man trapped in his sin I picture of a man being swarmed by bugs. If he stands still and tries to swat them one by one he will never be free of them. They are so great he alone cannot defeat them. So long as he focuses on himself and those bugs he will continually be bitten by them.
Some tell us that these bugs themselves constitute enjoyment (hedonists), so we should not worry about them. Our inherited traditions tell us that bugs are bad; once we transcend our mere human conventions we will be able to enjoy these bugs (Nietzsche). Others tell us that bugs are an illusion (Buddhism). In recognizing that they are an illusion, we will be free.
Only Christianity allows a man to escape this swarm of bugs. And there is only one way to escape a swarm of bugs: to move. One must walk or run away from them. As one does this they soon fall away. One can never defeat them, one must leave them. Similarly Christianity tells a man to take his focus off of himself and his sins and put it on God. As he grows closer to God his sins will drop away and his self will be sanctified.
The incorrect response to sin is to focus on sin and try to overcome it on one’s own. That struggle is futile and it will only end in frustration and defeat. Only at looking at something beyond himself (God) can man overcome the struggles raging within himself.
Thursday, February 7, 2008
A Correct Response to Sin
In the book The Brother’s Karamazov a distraught woman approaches the Elder of the local monastery, Father Zossima. She privately confesses to the Elder that she had murdered her abusive husband. In response to her admission of guilt Father Zossima replies:
“Fear nothing and never be afraid; and don’t fret. If only your penitence fail not, God will forgive all. There is no sin, and there can be no sin on all the earth which the Lord will not forgive to the truly repentant! Man cannot commit a sin so great as to exhaust the infinite love of God. Can there be a sin which could exceed the love of God? Think only of repentance, continual repentance, but dismiss fear altogether. Believe that God loves you as you cannot conceive; that He loves you with your sin, in your sin. It has been said of old that over one repentant sinner there is more joy in heaven than over ten righteous men. Go, and fear not. Be not bitter against men. Be not angry if you are wronged. Forgive the dead man in your heart what wrong he did you. Be reconciled with him in truth. If you are penitent, you love. And if you love you are of God. All things are atoned for, all things are saved by love. If I, a sinner, even as you are, am tender with you and have pity on you, how much more will God. Love is such a priceless treasure that by it the whole world was redeemed.”
Compare this with the Prophet Samuel’s message to the people of Israel recorded in I Samuel 12:19-24. The people have rejected God as their king and asked for an earthly king to lead them so that they, the chosen people, may be like all the other nations. Samuel rebukes them for this and at this point they repent:
Then all the people said to Samuel, "Pray for your servants to the LORD your God, so that we may not die, for we have added to all our sins this evil by asking for ourselves a king." Samuel said to the people, "Do not fear. You have committed all this evil, yet do not turn aside from following the LORD, but serve the LORD with all your heart. The LORD will not abandon His people on account of His great name. . . . Only fear the LORD and serve Him in truth with all your heart; for consider what great things He has done for you.”
The people of Israel had sinned. They know they have sinned, how are they to respond? Samuel tells them to not continue in their sin, but to fear God and serve Him in truth. He repeats his admonition to them a couple of times. Why does he do this? Because this is really hard to do! When we sin we create separation between us and God. It is easy to think that we’ve blown it and we might as well continue blowing it. We imagine that God is upset at us and has removed His love from us. This delusion creates a state of mind within us that encourages sin. When we think the love of God is taken from us it is easy for us to run to the things of this world for comfort. How do we avoid this? What is the correct response to sin?
I think that Father Zossima gives good advice to the sinful woman. We must remember that our sin does indeed separate us from God, but that God in His love (through Christ) bridged that great chasm. No act we can do places us outside of the infinite reaches of His love. We must remember that God loves us always; God loves us even in our sin. Only by having our faith grounded in this truth will we feel confident to turn to God in the midst of our sin for the healing and forgiveness we need. If we think God is mad at us or that He has taken His love from us, why would we turn to Him in our sin? We must remember always that He loves us. Only by remaining in His love may we overcome our sins.
“Fear nothing and never be afraid; and don’t fret. If only your penitence fail not, God will forgive all. There is no sin, and there can be no sin on all the earth which the Lord will not forgive to the truly repentant! Man cannot commit a sin so great as to exhaust the infinite love of God. Can there be a sin which could exceed the love of God? Think only of repentance, continual repentance, but dismiss fear altogether. Believe that God loves you as you cannot conceive; that He loves you with your sin, in your sin. It has been said of old that over one repentant sinner there is more joy in heaven than over ten righteous men. Go, and fear not. Be not bitter against men. Be not angry if you are wronged. Forgive the dead man in your heart what wrong he did you. Be reconciled with him in truth. If you are penitent, you love. And if you love you are of God. All things are atoned for, all things are saved by love. If I, a sinner, even as you are, am tender with you and have pity on you, how much more will God. Love is such a priceless treasure that by it the whole world was redeemed.”
Compare this with the Prophet Samuel’s message to the people of Israel recorded in I Samuel 12:19-24. The people have rejected God as their king and asked for an earthly king to lead them so that they, the chosen people, may be like all the other nations. Samuel rebukes them for this and at this point they repent:
Then all the people said to Samuel, "Pray for your servants to the LORD your God, so that we may not die, for we have added to all our sins this evil by asking for ourselves a king." Samuel said to the people, "Do not fear. You have committed all this evil, yet do not turn aside from following the LORD, but serve the LORD with all your heart. The LORD will not abandon His people on account of His great name. . . . Only fear the LORD and serve Him in truth with all your heart; for consider what great things He has done for you.”
The people of Israel had sinned. They know they have sinned, how are they to respond? Samuel tells them to not continue in their sin, but to fear God and serve Him in truth. He repeats his admonition to them a couple of times. Why does he do this? Because this is really hard to do! When we sin we create separation between us and God. It is easy to think that we’ve blown it and we might as well continue blowing it. We imagine that God is upset at us and has removed His love from us. This delusion creates a state of mind within us that encourages sin. When we think the love of God is taken from us it is easy for us to run to the things of this world for comfort. How do we avoid this? What is the correct response to sin?
I think that Father Zossima gives good advice to the sinful woman. We must remember that our sin does indeed separate us from God, but that God in His love (through Christ) bridged that great chasm. No act we can do places us outside of the infinite reaches of His love. We must remember that God loves us always; God loves us even in our sin. Only by having our faith grounded in this truth will we feel confident to turn to God in the midst of our sin for the healing and forgiveness we need. If we think God is mad at us or that He has taken His love from us, why would we turn to Him in our sin? We must remember always that He loves us. Only by remaining in His love may we overcome our sins.
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
The Indispensable Man
The movers of history: Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Muhammad, Martin Luther, Napoleon. All of them were great men and shaped the course of history, yet none of these men were indispensable. Even if all of them had never been born the world would be the same as it is today. There is only one Man who we cannot conceive the world without; there is only one indispensable man, the God who became man: Jesus Christ.
Consider Alexander the Great. He was a great general and conquered most of the known world of his day. He is in part responsible for the spread of Greek culture (Hellenization) that influenced (and continues to influence to this day) the West. However the spread of Greek culture was more the result of the conquest of Greece than the conquests of Greece. After Rome conquered Greece it absorbed Greek culture and spread this culture through its empire. One can imagine the spread of Greek culture even without the conquests of Alexander, the great Greek conqueror. Alexander was not an indispensable man. One can imagine a world identical to ours in which Alexander had never been born.
Or consider Julius Caesar. He symbolized the end of the Republic and the emergence of Empire. The Roman Empire influenced the world far and wide and its laws, architecture, and art continue to influence us to this day. But one can easily imagine a Roman Empire without Caesar. The Republic was dead long before the birth of Caesar. The people were not vigilant in guarding their liberty. Rome was falling into chaos and the people wanted an authoritarian to restore order. As Hegel wrote, “The great man of his age is the one who can put into words the will of his age.” If Caesar had not been born, Cassius, Brutus, Pompeii, Marc Antony—one of the number of Rome’s ambitious and skilled generals would have stepped into his role as first emperor. The world would be exactly as it is today had Caesar never been born.
What of a modern man like Napoleon? Like Alexander and Caesar Napoleon was an ambitious, yet gifted military leader who shook the foundations of the world in which he lived. But like Alexander and Caesar Napoleon was more of a symbol, more of an embodiment of the will of the people, than he was a real man. In destroying their monarch the French had destroyed their order. They looked for a strong man to restore order and protect their revolution (through expansion) from the monarchs of Europe. If Napoleon hadn’t stepped up to take on this mantle, another would have. History would have progressed no differently had Napoleon never been born.
But what of religious leaders? Muhammad founded a new religion, but this was only a Christian heresy (a simplification of the nuances of Christianity. In Islam there is no trinity, God is one. There is no salvation by faith; salvation comes through the observance of five simple pillars). This new religion was born out of its culture. It legitimized the ingrained poor treatment of woman and encouraged the constant nomadic, military advances into the West (the Huns, Avars, and Mongols) to continue uninterrupted under the mantle of Islam (by the Arabs and Turks). Islam did not change world history; it simply gave a new name to long established customs.
Or consider Martin Luther, the first modern man as he is often called. Like Napoleon he was the symbol of a revolution. Desire to reform permeated the church. Men like Wycliffe and Hus had tried before Luther and failed. If Luther had failed, another would have followed him and succeeded. He was important to human history, but not indispensable.
What of those unnamed movers of history? The inventor of writing or the first maker of the wheel? In both cases there was no single man. Writing was invented simultaneously across the globe in a number of places, as was the wheel. As great as these men were, if one hadn’t have lived, another would have stepped in his place and history would have progressed no differently. There is only one Indispensable Man. Only one Man without whose presence we cannot even begin to fathom the course that history would have taken. That man in Jesus Christ.
Scholars of all stripes and from all ages are in complete unity in this judgment: the history of the West is inconceivable without the church. One cannot imagine our history without this institution. It is impossible to reckon on how things would have progressed and how life would be now if there had never been a church. Given the tremendous effect the church has had on the West, how it has shaped it in such a way that we cannot conceive of the West without it, it is fair to say (given the influence of the West on the world) that one cannot even begin to imagine how the world would be had their never been a Christian church.
Christ is the founder of the church and one can think of no other source for this institution. Christ was not a symbol of the desires of His time; on the contrary He was executed by His own people for refusing to fill a role they wanted Him to fill (political leader). In this way He stands in stark contrast to men like Napoleon and Luther who filled a role that society had already created.
Of course there have been other founders of religion, but all other religions simply deny or affirm our natural instincts. Stoics and Platonists simply tell us to deny our natural passions (your body is cage, death is release and not to be feared, and sex in all forms is ignoble), while Hinduism and most polytheistic cults tell us to affirm them (drink in the temple of Bacchus, sleep with the priestess of Aphrodite, and appease the gods so you can delay death).
Christ tells us something new about the human condition. He tells us the body is not evil in itself (for He Himself occupied one), but our passions must be controlled. Sex is to be monogamous, but marriage is a blessing and not to be disparaged. He is the only man who was not wholly man and thereby the only man able to provide outside insight into the condition of man.
How would the West have developed after the fall of Rome without the church? If there had been no monks, who would have saved the ancient philosophies and dramas and literacy itself? The height of Greek thought never produced a notion of equality (Aristotle had his natural slavery and Plato his notion of noble and base metals). The idea of equality never entered the mind of man naturally; it was implemented by the church. How can one imagine the West without a notion of equality? There would be no Magna Carta or American or French Revolutions. Christianity fostered and encouraged the arts and sciences. Michelangelo, Da Vinci, Copernicus, Galileo, and Gutenberg: all of these men were spurned by their belief in Absolute Truth and Beauty to seek to understand truth and create beauty on earth. And Christianity provided a culture with morals. Would Europe have survived if the degenerate morality and nihilism of the Roman Empire had been allowed to develop without interruption? There surely would never have been an era of chivalry and there certainly would still be slavery. The world is as it is because of the church and the church was born out of Christ. If we were to visit a world where Christ had never come, it would not be even remotely recognizable to the world we inhabit today.
That the institution of the Church is Divine (and that Christ Himself was Divine) is shown in the fact that Christ is the only indispensable man in all of human history. One can imagine human history without any of the countless great men who have graced the pages of human history, but one cannot imagine human history without the God/Man Jesus Christ.
Consider Alexander the Great. He was a great general and conquered most of the known world of his day. He is in part responsible for the spread of Greek culture (Hellenization) that influenced (and continues to influence to this day) the West. However the spread of Greek culture was more the result of the conquest of Greece than the conquests of Greece. After Rome conquered Greece it absorbed Greek culture and spread this culture through its empire. One can imagine the spread of Greek culture even without the conquests of Alexander, the great Greek conqueror. Alexander was not an indispensable man. One can imagine a world identical to ours in which Alexander had never been born.
Or consider Julius Caesar. He symbolized the end of the Republic and the emergence of Empire. The Roman Empire influenced the world far and wide and its laws, architecture, and art continue to influence us to this day. But one can easily imagine a Roman Empire without Caesar. The Republic was dead long before the birth of Caesar. The people were not vigilant in guarding their liberty. Rome was falling into chaos and the people wanted an authoritarian to restore order. As Hegel wrote, “The great man of his age is the one who can put into words the will of his age.” If Caesar had not been born, Cassius, Brutus, Pompeii, Marc Antony—one of the number of Rome’s ambitious and skilled generals would have stepped into his role as first emperor. The world would be exactly as it is today had Caesar never been born.
What of a modern man like Napoleon? Like Alexander and Caesar Napoleon was an ambitious, yet gifted military leader who shook the foundations of the world in which he lived. But like Alexander and Caesar Napoleon was more of a symbol, more of an embodiment of the will of the people, than he was a real man. In destroying their monarch the French had destroyed their order. They looked for a strong man to restore order and protect their revolution (through expansion) from the monarchs of Europe. If Napoleon hadn’t stepped up to take on this mantle, another would have. History would have progressed no differently had Napoleon never been born.
But what of religious leaders? Muhammad founded a new religion, but this was only a Christian heresy (a simplification of the nuances of Christianity. In Islam there is no trinity, God is one. There is no salvation by faith; salvation comes through the observance of five simple pillars). This new religion was born out of its culture. It legitimized the ingrained poor treatment of woman and encouraged the constant nomadic, military advances into the West (the Huns, Avars, and Mongols) to continue uninterrupted under the mantle of Islam (by the Arabs and Turks). Islam did not change world history; it simply gave a new name to long established customs.
Or consider Martin Luther, the first modern man as he is often called. Like Napoleon he was the symbol of a revolution. Desire to reform permeated the church. Men like Wycliffe and Hus had tried before Luther and failed. If Luther had failed, another would have followed him and succeeded. He was important to human history, but not indispensable.
What of those unnamed movers of history? The inventor of writing or the first maker of the wheel? In both cases there was no single man. Writing was invented simultaneously across the globe in a number of places, as was the wheel. As great as these men were, if one hadn’t have lived, another would have stepped in his place and history would have progressed no differently. There is only one Indispensable Man. Only one Man without whose presence we cannot even begin to fathom the course that history would have taken. That man in Jesus Christ.
Scholars of all stripes and from all ages are in complete unity in this judgment: the history of the West is inconceivable without the church. One cannot imagine our history without this institution. It is impossible to reckon on how things would have progressed and how life would be now if there had never been a church. Given the tremendous effect the church has had on the West, how it has shaped it in such a way that we cannot conceive of the West without it, it is fair to say (given the influence of the West on the world) that one cannot even begin to imagine how the world would be had their never been a Christian church.
Christ is the founder of the church and one can think of no other source for this institution. Christ was not a symbol of the desires of His time; on the contrary He was executed by His own people for refusing to fill a role they wanted Him to fill (political leader). In this way He stands in stark contrast to men like Napoleon and Luther who filled a role that society had already created.
Of course there have been other founders of religion, but all other religions simply deny or affirm our natural instincts. Stoics and Platonists simply tell us to deny our natural passions (your body is cage, death is release and not to be feared, and sex in all forms is ignoble), while Hinduism and most polytheistic cults tell us to affirm them (drink in the temple of Bacchus, sleep with the priestess of Aphrodite, and appease the gods so you can delay death).
Christ tells us something new about the human condition. He tells us the body is not evil in itself (for He Himself occupied one), but our passions must be controlled. Sex is to be monogamous, but marriage is a blessing and not to be disparaged. He is the only man who was not wholly man and thereby the only man able to provide outside insight into the condition of man.
How would the West have developed after the fall of Rome without the church? If there had been no monks, who would have saved the ancient philosophies and dramas and literacy itself? The height of Greek thought never produced a notion of equality (Aristotle had his natural slavery and Plato his notion of noble and base metals). The idea of equality never entered the mind of man naturally; it was implemented by the church. How can one imagine the West without a notion of equality? There would be no Magna Carta or American or French Revolutions. Christianity fostered and encouraged the arts and sciences. Michelangelo, Da Vinci, Copernicus, Galileo, and Gutenberg: all of these men were spurned by their belief in Absolute Truth and Beauty to seek to understand truth and create beauty on earth. And Christianity provided a culture with morals. Would Europe have survived if the degenerate morality and nihilism of the Roman Empire had been allowed to develop without interruption? There surely would never have been an era of chivalry and there certainly would still be slavery. The world is as it is because of the church and the church was born out of Christ. If we were to visit a world where Christ had never come, it would not be even remotely recognizable to the world we inhabit today.
That the institution of the Church is Divine (and that Christ Himself was Divine) is shown in the fact that Christ is the only indispensable man in all of human history. One can imagine human history without any of the countless great men who have graced the pages of human history, but one cannot imagine human history without the God/Man Jesus Christ.
Monday, February 4, 2008
Pagan Christianity
A new book (or more appropriately, a re-release/new edition of recent book) is causing a bit of a stir in the ‘Christian Community’. It is called Pagan Christianity and it is by Frank Viola. In this book Viola points out how many of the things that are part of the modern church (like tithing, the message, clergy pay, etc) are not based in the New Testament, rather they grew out of pagan tradition and culture.
Now, I must confess that I have not read this book (nor will I). It seems like the height of ignorance to write about a book one has not read, but I contend that it is not. For this book has been written hundreds of times through the ages and I have read a few versions of this tale.
Many men through the ages have, like Viola, noticed a divide between the early church and the church of their age. When they notice that their church lacks an Essential Truth that was crucial in the early church and they seek to reclaim that Truth, their efforts are Godly. But when they focus on inessential truths (as Viola does here) their efforts to reform the church in accordance to the model of the early church fall into chaos.
In the 1300’s a man named John Wycliffe came to the conclusion that Viola has—the church has strayed from its roots. The church of the Apostles was not recognizable in the church of his day. Wycliffe noted that there was professional, celibate clergy and they alone could fully partake in communion. Mass was in a language that the common man (the laity) could not understand. And the people were discouraged (and sometimes prevented) from reading God’s word. Wycliffe translated the Bible into the vernacular and made it available to the laity—this revolutionized Europe (at least marked the beginning of revolution).
John Hus became a follow of Wycliffe in the 1400’s. He recognized that much of the church was based on mere tradition that did this tradition did not fit the times. He began to preach in Czech instead of Latin, he gave communion to the laity, and he lengthened the sermon because the people asked him to.
All of this led up to Luther. What did these three reformers have in common? They all had the same inspiration for their reform. They read the New Testament, saw the divide between the primitive church (the church as described in the New Testament) and the current church, and sought to make the current church like the primitive church. (I will not comment on the merits or success of their endeavors).
These reformers preached about the falsity of the donation of Constantine, they disputed the authority of the Pope over all the church, they sought to replace a clergy/laity divide funding by tithing with a notion of the ‘priesthood of all believers’, and they said all were equal so all could take communion.
When they announced their programs of reform, no one in the church was surprised. Nearly everyone in the church recognized the divide between the church of the apostles and the church of Medieval Europe.
Everyone knew that the donation of Constantine was a myth, but it was a convenient myth (it checked the political ambition of the Pope by appeasing him) and that is why it prevailed (the donation of Constantine was a forged document that stated that the Emperor Constantine had in the fourth century given the Pope authority over most of Italy. This of course conveniently legitimated the political control of Europe by the Pope).
The authority of the Bishop of Rome (the Pope) over the church had been contested for centuries, but Europe thought Christianity needed a head, so they kept this fiction.
Tithing was a Levitical institution, but the church in taking on the role of educator, moralizer, judge, and guardian of Europe had developed a complex infostructure and required lots of funding, thus the institution of tithing (often made mandatory) remained.
Communion wine was only given to the clergy to remind the common people of their status. There was a hierarchy and they were on the bottom. The leading minds of Europe thought this was necessary to maintain social order (which by that time had become the most important role of the church. The church was given special status and power by the state; in return they supported the king and state and kept the peasants in check. The belief shared by Catholics and reformers alike during that age was that man was tainted by original sin and if he was given freedom, he would bring destruction).
Viola’s claim that there is a divide between the early and modern church is not any sort of new revelation. Most have recognized this in the past for any half discerning reader of the New Testament realizes very quickly, like the great reformers, that the church of today looks completely different from the church described in the New Testament. We should be greatly worried if our church has strayed from the Essential Truth, but I contend that a difference in form alone (inessential truths) is not a problem.
The New Testament gives little direction about how a church service should function: whether church should meet in a home or a building, what type of music, if any should be played, the pay of preachers (Paul did not accept pay, but told Timothy he could request it), how long a message should be (or even if there should be a message), etc.
Bertrand Russell says if a great writer leaves something out, the absence of this thing is purposeful and we need to interpret the text with this in mind. The Bible is God’s Word, nothing in it or omitted from it is accidental. There is a reason why instructions for church procedures are largely absent: church service procedure consists of inessential truths and it can change depending on time and circumstance. In fact the Bible is vague on inessential truth so as to allow the church to adapt to every culture and every age. In adopting procedure and not focusing on inessential truth the church is best able to communicate the Essential Truth of the Word of God.
At times it may be best and convenient for people to meet in a home for church, in other times a field, and still other times for people to meet in an ornate cathedral. This is an inessential truth, so the Bible says nothing about it. That allows us to use whatever meeting place is best given our particular situation. Why do we meet in church buildings? Because as Christianity began to spread through imperial Rome the old Roman cults went bankrupt. There were numerous empty temples throughout the empire. Constantine wanted these buildings to be put to good use, so he gave them to the church.
These provided convenient places of meeting, so the church accepted. From this does it follow that we must meet in church buildings? Of course not, it was convenient for the earliest Christians, but it may not be convenient for us. But the mere fact that this tradition of meeting in a church building is rooted in culture does not make it wrong. It is not right or wrong, it is an inessential truth and that is why the Bible gives no instruction regarding it.
Admittedly there is reason why men like Viola have sought to point out the lack of Biblical foundation for certain traditions of the church. Far too often these traditions have been turned into sacred cows and maintained at all cost. The elevation of inessential truths to the level of Essential Truth leads to chaos when they are made the source of reforms, but just as problematic is the fact that this same elevation becomes a stumbling block when these truths are maintained. Some old time Christian missionaries told Africans that drums were the instruments of the devil and would not let them incorporate their style of music into worship. This kept Africans from worshiping God. Some people think the King James Version is the only authoritative version of the Bible. Forcing some to read this version prevents them from comprehended the Bible (and it makes Christianity appear old and outdated to others). The Bible gives no instruction on what form worship should take nor what translation from which one should read the Bible. The Bible fails to do this so that these inessential truths would not become a stumbling block to people receiving the Essential Truth. But Christians, though good natured, through their focus on maintaining inessential truths have become the very stumbling block the Bible warns them not to be.
What the Bible does give is clear and repeated instruction on the Essential Truths that the church must hold unto: the fallen state of man, man’s need for a savior, and the death and resurrection of the God who became man to save all mankind. This Essential Truth should be our focus. When the church strays from this Truth we must be concerned, but when it changes tradition with time we should not worry. Paul tells Titus (Titus 1:9) to hold fast to sound doctrine, (not the early church traditions of the Jerusalem church, but the Truth of the Gospel) and refute those who oppose it. Throughout the New Testament it is made clear that many false teachers will come and corrupt the Gospel, so we must be vigilant in holding fast the Truth.
Narrow is our road and it narrow we must keep it. We must judge all teaching against God’s Infallible Word so as to keep out false teaching (Galatians 1:8). When citizens lose their vigilant defense of liberty, they become slaves. When the church gets tired of judging all teaching against the Bible, they let in falsehood. For the broad road that leads to destruction is easy and wide and it can accommodate many strains of false teaching. But when we are focused on inessential truth it is difficult to protect the purity of the Gospel.
For indeed, just as Hus and Luther were inspired to reform the church over the discrepancies of Essential Truth between the ancient church and the church of their day (namely salvation by grace through faith versus salvation through the fulfillment of sacraments) some of their followers worked to destroy the church over inessential discrepancies between the early church and the current church.
For example a group of Hussites (followers of the reformer John Hus) read about the communistic configuration of the early church and decided that this was an essential truth. They set up a communistic society in the city of Tabor. They held all their property in common, their wives in common, and a contingent of them were nudists. By focusing on inessential truths they splintered the reform movement and prevented true and necessary reform of Essential Truth to occur.
In the same way a group of Lutherans broke off and called themselves the Anabaptists (they did not believe in infant baptism). They formed a communist society (that held all, including wives and children in common) and took up arms against their German princes. They were defeated and eventually grew into the Amish(!) of today. Because they focused on an inessential truth (the relation of the church to property) they discredited the reform movement and took the focus of the people from the Truth.
The early church held all property in common because it was being viciously persecuted and needed Christians needed to live in this radical community simply to survive. This account (found in Acts chapter 4) is descriptive and not prescriptive. If we compare our current church situation to the descriptions given of the church in the New Testament we will find them to be different, but we should not be surprised for we have a different culture. What would Viola have us replace our traditions with? The traditions of the early church? How could those work, they are based in a culture we do not share. We must examine the scriptures and be sure the church is not straying from the Essential Truth; this is emphasized over and over in the New Testament. But we should not concern ourselves with the ever changing controversies regarding inessential truths. The Bible is vague regarding them so as to allow the church to adapt to every culture in time so as to best present the Essential Truth. We should never let a controversy over an inessential truth become a stumbling block for presenting the Gospel. Focusing on inessential truths (either reforming or maintaining them) only leads to chaos (remember the Hussites and Anabaptists) or it makes one into a stumbling block (like the missionaries who said God could not be worshiped with music containing drums); either way the church is harmed. By focusing on inessential truths we lower our guard and allow false teaching to sneak its way in and corrupt the Gospel.
If we don’t notice certain traditions, then they aren’t doing any harm. The Devil would like to distract us and keep us from the Truth by making us focus on inessential truths—he could care less if our focus is on performing these traditions or reforming them. Yes, some of what the church does today is because of the involvement in the church by the Emperor Constantine and the problems his reforms created at various times show clearly the consequences of the state wrongly interfering with the church. Through the years we have discarded much of this and as years pass I imagine we’ll continue to discard more. But as we change we cannot simply destroy as the French did in their revolution, for that leads to chaos. We must reform within our tradition (found in the model of the American Revolution).
I am sure Viola has good intentions, but what good will his book do? No one puts up a Christmas tree next year because this is an old pagan tradition? He should not be focused on destroying, but on creating. Worst of all Viola seems to be oblivious to all the harm that focusing on essential truths has done to the church—both by those who want to maintain them and by those who want to expose and reform them. Any time we focus and argue over inessential truths we are taking our eyes off of the Essential Truth and opening the door for the Devil to come in subtly, but surely, corrupt the Gospel.
A few friends of mine both have full time jobs. During the week they prepare sermons and on Sunday morning they hold church in the basement of their house. Afterwards there is discussion, prayer, and a meal together. This new form of church seems to be better at serving our particular culture and time than the traditional go to a building/get preached at model. That approach does not work so well today because in the past community was a given; church did not need to encourage or foster community. But in an age of suburbs, shopping malls, and television community is all but destroyed and churches that do nothing to stem this destruction are dying while those that foster community flourish (as evidenced by the growth of home churches worldwide).
This is the way to change. It is not a break with the past; it does not focus on inessential truths and try to reform them with better inessential truths. Instead it focuses on how to best present the Gospel, the Essential Truth, to a dying world and how to best serve the followers of Christ in their walk with God.
Now, I must confess that I have not read this book (nor will I). It seems like the height of ignorance to write about a book one has not read, but I contend that it is not. For this book has been written hundreds of times through the ages and I have read a few versions of this tale.
Many men through the ages have, like Viola, noticed a divide between the early church and the church of their age. When they notice that their church lacks an Essential Truth that was crucial in the early church and they seek to reclaim that Truth, their efforts are Godly. But when they focus on inessential truths (as Viola does here) their efforts to reform the church in accordance to the model of the early church fall into chaos.
In the 1300’s a man named John Wycliffe came to the conclusion that Viola has—the church has strayed from its roots. The church of the Apostles was not recognizable in the church of his day. Wycliffe noted that there was professional, celibate clergy and they alone could fully partake in communion. Mass was in a language that the common man (the laity) could not understand. And the people were discouraged (and sometimes prevented) from reading God’s word. Wycliffe translated the Bible into the vernacular and made it available to the laity—this revolutionized Europe (at least marked the beginning of revolution).
John Hus became a follow of Wycliffe in the 1400’s. He recognized that much of the church was based on mere tradition that did this tradition did not fit the times. He began to preach in Czech instead of Latin, he gave communion to the laity, and he lengthened the sermon because the people asked him to.
All of this led up to Luther. What did these three reformers have in common? They all had the same inspiration for their reform. They read the New Testament, saw the divide between the primitive church (the church as described in the New Testament) and the current church, and sought to make the current church like the primitive church. (I will not comment on the merits or success of their endeavors).
These reformers preached about the falsity of the donation of Constantine, they disputed the authority of the Pope over all the church, they sought to replace a clergy/laity divide funding by tithing with a notion of the ‘priesthood of all believers’, and they said all were equal so all could take communion.
When they announced their programs of reform, no one in the church was surprised. Nearly everyone in the church recognized the divide between the church of the apostles and the church of Medieval Europe.
Everyone knew that the donation of Constantine was a myth, but it was a convenient myth (it checked the political ambition of the Pope by appeasing him) and that is why it prevailed (the donation of Constantine was a forged document that stated that the Emperor Constantine had in the fourth century given the Pope authority over most of Italy. This of course conveniently legitimated the political control of Europe by the Pope).
The authority of the Bishop of Rome (the Pope) over the church had been contested for centuries, but Europe thought Christianity needed a head, so they kept this fiction.
Tithing was a Levitical institution, but the church in taking on the role of educator, moralizer, judge, and guardian of Europe had developed a complex infostructure and required lots of funding, thus the institution of tithing (often made mandatory) remained.
Communion wine was only given to the clergy to remind the common people of their status. There was a hierarchy and they were on the bottom. The leading minds of Europe thought this was necessary to maintain social order (which by that time had become the most important role of the church. The church was given special status and power by the state; in return they supported the king and state and kept the peasants in check. The belief shared by Catholics and reformers alike during that age was that man was tainted by original sin and if he was given freedom, he would bring destruction).
Viola’s claim that there is a divide between the early and modern church is not any sort of new revelation. Most have recognized this in the past for any half discerning reader of the New Testament realizes very quickly, like the great reformers, that the church of today looks completely different from the church described in the New Testament. We should be greatly worried if our church has strayed from the Essential Truth, but I contend that a difference in form alone (inessential truths) is not a problem.
The New Testament gives little direction about how a church service should function: whether church should meet in a home or a building, what type of music, if any should be played, the pay of preachers (Paul did not accept pay, but told Timothy he could request it), how long a message should be (or even if there should be a message), etc.
Bertrand Russell says if a great writer leaves something out, the absence of this thing is purposeful and we need to interpret the text with this in mind. The Bible is God’s Word, nothing in it or omitted from it is accidental. There is a reason why instructions for church procedures are largely absent: church service procedure consists of inessential truths and it can change depending on time and circumstance. In fact the Bible is vague on inessential truth so as to allow the church to adapt to every culture and every age. In adopting procedure and not focusing on inessential truth the church is best able to communicate the Essential Truth of the Word of God.
At times it may be best and convenient for people to meet in a home for church, in other times a field, and still other times for people to meet in an ornate cathedral. This is an inessential truth, so the Bible says nothing about it. That allows us to use whatever meeting place is best given our particular situation. Why do we meet in church buildings? Because as Christianity began to spread through imperial Rome the old Roman cults went bankrupt. There were numerous empty temples throughout the empire. Constantine wanted these buildings to be put to good use, so he gave them to the church.
These provided convenient places of meeting, so the church accepted. From this does it follow that we must meet in church buildings? Of course not, it was convenient for the earliest Christians, but it may not be convenient for us. But the mere fact that this tradition of meeting in a church building is rooted in culture does not make it wrong. It is not right or wrong, it is an inessential truth and that is why the Bible gives no instruction regarding it.
Admittedly there is reason why men like Viola have sought to point out the lack of Biblical foundation for certain traditions of the church. Far too often these traditions have been turned into sacred cows and maintained at all cost. The elevation of inessential truths to the level of Essential Truth leads to chaos when they are made the source of reforms, but just as problematic is the fact that this same elevation becomes a stumbling block when these truths are maintained. Some old time Christian missionaries told Africans that drums were the instruments of the devil and would not let them incorporate their style of music into worship. This kept Africans from worshiping God. Some people think the King James Version is the only authoritative version of the Bible. Forcing some to read this version prevents them from comprehended the Bible (and it makes Christianity appear old and outdated to others). The Bible gives no instruction on what form worship should take nor what translation from which one should read the Bible. The Bible fails to do this so that these inessential truths would not become a stumbling block to people receiving the Essential Truth. But Christians, though good natured, through their focus on maintaining inessential truths have become the very stumbling block the Bible warns them not to be.
What the Bible does give is clear and repeated instruction on the Essential Truths that the church must hold unto: the fallen state of man, man’s need for a savior, and the death and resurrection of the God who became man to save all mankind. This Essential Truth should be our focus. When the church strays from this Truth we must be concerned, but when it changes tradition with time we should not worry. Paul tells Titus (Titus 1:9) to hold fast to sound doctrine, (not the early church traditions of the Jerusalem church, but the Truth of the Gospel) and refute those who oppose it. Throughout the New Testament it is made clear that many false teachers will come and corrupt the Gospel, so we must be vigilant in holding fast the Truth.
Narrow is our road and it narrow we must keep it. We must judge all teaching against God’s Infallible Word so as to keep out false teaching (Galatians 1:8). When citizens lose their vigilant defense of liberty, they become slaves. When the church gets tired of judging all teaching against the Bible, they let in falsehood. For the broad road that leads to destruction is easy and wide and it can accommodate many strains of false teaching. But when we are focused on inessential truth it is difficult to protect the purity of the Gospel.
For indeed, just as Hus and Luther were inspired to reform the church over the discrepancies of Essential Truth between the ancient church and the church of their day (namely salvation by grace through faith versus salvation through the fulfillment of sacraments) some of their followers worked to destroy the church over inessential discrepancies between the early church and the current church.
For example a group of Hussites (followers of the reformer John Hus) read about the communistic configuration of the early church and decided that this was an essential truth. They set up a communistic society in the city of Tabor. They held all their property in common, their wives in common, and a contingent of them were nudists. By focusing on inessential truths they splintered the reform movement and prevented true and necessary reform of Essential Truth to occur.
In the same way a group of Lutherans broke off and called themselves the Anabaptists (they did not believe in infant baptism). They formed a communist society (that held all, including wives and children in common) and took up arms against their German princes. They were defeated and eventually grew into the Amish(!) of today. Because they focused on an inessential truth (the relation of the church to property) they discredited the reform movement and took the focus of the people from the Truth.
The early church held all property in common because it was being viciously persecuted and needed Christians needed to live in this radical community simply to survive. This account (found in Acts chapter 4) is descriptive and not prescriptive. If we compare our current church situation to the descriptions given of the church in the New Testament we will find them to be different, but we should not be surprised for we have a different culture. What would Viola have us replace our traditions with? The traditions of the early church? How could those work, they are based in a culture we do not share. We must examine the scriptures and be sure the church is not straying from the Essential Truth; this is emphasized over and over in the New Testament. But we should not concern ourselves with the ever changing controversies regarding inessential truths. The Bible is vague regarding them so as to allow the church to adapt to every culture in time so as to best present the Essential Truth. We should never let a controversy over an inessential truth become a stumbling block for presenting the Gospel. Focusing on inessential truths (either reforming or maintaining them) only leads to chaos (remember the Hussites and Anabaptists) or it makes one into a stumbling block (like the missionaries who said God could not be worshiped with music containing drums); either way the church is harmed. By focusing on inessential truths we lower our guard and allow false teaching to sneak its way in and corrupt the Gospel.
If we don’t notice certain traditions, then they aren’t doing any harm. The Devil would like to distract us and keep us from the Truth by making us focus on inessential truths—he could care less if our focus is on performing these traditions or reforming them. Yes, some of what the church does today is because of the involvement in the church by the Emperor Constantine and the problems his reforms created at various times show clearly the consequences of the state wrongly interfering with the church. Through the years we have discarded much of this and as years pass I imagine we’ll continue to discard more. But as we change we cannot simply destroy as the French did in their revolution, for that leads to chaos. We must reform within our tradition (found in the model of the American Revolution).
I am sure Viola has good intentions, but what good will his book do? No one puts up a Christmas tree next year because this is an old pagan tradition? He should not be focused on destroying, but on creating. Worst of all Viola seems to be oblivious to all the harm that focusing on essential truths has done to the church—both by those who want to maintain them and by those who want to expose and reform them. Any time we focus and argue over inessential truths we are taking our eyes off of the Essential Truth and opening the door for the Devil to come in subtly, but surely, corrupt the Gospel.
A few friends of mine both have full time jobs. During the week they prepare sermons and on Sunday morning they hold church in the basement of their house. Afterwards there is discussion, prayer, and a meal together. This new form of church seems to be better at serving our particular culture and time than the traditional go to a building/get preached at model. That approach does not work so well today because in the past community was a given; church did not need to encourage or foster community. But in an age of suburbs, shopping malls, and television community is all but destroyed and churches that do nothing to stem this destruction are dying while those that foster community flourish (as evidenced by the growth of home churches worldwide).
This is the way to change. It is not a break with the past; it does not focus on inessential truths and try to reform them with better inessential truths. Instead it focuses on how to best present the Gospel, the Essential Truth, to a dying world and how to best serve the followers of Christ in their walk with God.
A Quick Note on Reading Books
One should read all sorts of books but I think there is a modern trend to read newer books at the expense of older ones. I think we should prefer older books to the new. Outside of the Word of God no book is perfect. Old books and new books contain errors alike; the problem is that the errors of modern books are difficult for us to discern precisely because they are modern errors and we often share them. Old books too contain errors, but they are readily recognizable by us.
For example I can read John Hus and learn about how the ancient church operated. When he is in error, it is obvious to me and thereby harmless (like his misunderstanding of the accession of Mary into Heaven). But when I read a modern book and they hint at ecumenicalism or misunderstand toleration or infuse Christianity with humanism I am less likely to recognize these errors because they are commonly held values of my culture. Because I am less likely to recognize these errors they pose a far greater threat to subtly and gradually shifting my faith into falsehood. (Of course of all books the Bible is the most important to read for it alone is Truth).
A man who has visited many villages is not likely to fall for the superstitions and errors of his own village. So too a man who has lived in many times through books is not likely to fall for the superstitions and errors of his own time. Everything that can be said has already been said: there is nothing new under the sun. People that write today say nothing new, but their errors are subtle to modern readers, while the errors of the past are blatant and thereby far less dangerous.
For example I can read John Hus and learn about how the ancient church operated. When he is in error, it is obvious to me and thereby harmless (like his misunderstanding of the accession of Mary into Heaven). But when I read a modern book and they hint at ecumenicalism or misunderstand toleration or infuse Christianity with humanism I am less likely to recognize these errors because they are commonly held values of my culture. Because I am less likely to recognize these errors they pose a far greater threat to subtly and gradually shifting my faith into falsehood. (Of course of all books the Bible is the most important to read for it alone is Truth).
A man who has visited many villages is not likely to fall for the superstitions and errors of his own village. So too a man who has lived in many times through books is not likely to fall for the superstitions and errors of his own time. Everything that can be said has already been said: there is nothing new under the sun. People that write today say nothing new, but their errors are subtle to modern readers, while the errors of the past are blatant and thereby far less dangerous.
Sunday, February 3, 2008
Sin as a Symptom
Sin is our disease, our curse, the act of our rebellion against God. But at the same time it is a symptom of our shame, guilt, and brokenness—it is a symptom of the very consequences that it brings. That is why it is often cyclical in nature and difficult to break.
Take the highly talked about and always controversial sin of homosexuality. What is it? Like all sin it is an imperfection; a situation that is less than ideal. God made man and woman to live in monogamous, life time commitment. Sex is valid only in this confine, the confine of marriage. Any sex (or even wrongful desire of sex, i.e. lust) with anyone outside of this God ordained institution, outside of God’s ideal, is a sin. Incest, bestiality, pornography, adultery, fortification, and fantasy are all outside of God’s ideal and therefore all sin. We are all sinners so we are not to judge others—we are no better than they. But not judging others does not mean that we fail to call sin a sin. Actions outside of God’s law are sin and wrong and we must declare them as such, but in doing so we must remember that we say this as sinners ourselves; we are not yet saints.
Our sin brings separation and disunity between God and man and man and his fellow man. That is the consequence of sin. All too often this felt separation is a cause of sin as well. Many men lived broken and ashamed, hating who they are. Sin makes them feel good for a moment and forget their pain. Being disunited from mankind, they turn in particular to sexual sin for it gives them the illusion of unity.
This is the bad news. Left alone we are stuck in a futile cycle we cannot break on our own. Our sin has consequences and those consequences fuel our need to sin.
But the good news (the gospel) is that God has provided a way out of this circle of despair. He has at once taken away the deserved consequence of our sin and reconciled us to Himself, while at the same time He is healing us and taking our shame and pain from us so that we no longer have such a (perceived) need to run to sin. He has cured us from our disease and symptoms in one fall swoop.
Take the highly talked about and always controversial sin of homosexuality. What is it? Like all sin it is an imperfection; a situation that is less than ideal. God made man and woman to live in monogamous, life time commitment. Sex is valid only in this confine, the confine of marriage. Any sex (or even wrongful desire of sex, i.e. lust) with anyone outside of this God ordained institution, outside of God’s ideal, is a sin. Incest, bestiality, pornography, adultery, fortification, and fantasy are all outside of God’s ideal and therefore all sin. We are all sinners so we are not to judge others—we are no better than they. But not judging others does not mean that we fail to call sin a sin. Actions outside of God’s law are sin and wrong and we must declare them as such, but in doing so we must remember that we say this as sinners ourselves; we are not yet saints.
Our sin brings separation and disunity between God and man and man and his fellow man. That is the consequence of sin. All too often this felt separation is a cause of sin as well. Many men lived broken and ashamed, hating who they are. Sin makes them feel good for a moment and forget their pain. Being disunited from mankind, they turn in particular to sexual sin for it gives them the illusion of unity.
This is the bad news. Left alone we are stuck in a futile cycle we cannot break on our own. Our sin has consequences and those consequences fuel our need to sin.
But the good news (the gospel) is that God has provided a way out of this circle of despair. He has at once taken away the deserved consequence of our sin and reconciled us to Himself, while at the same time He is healing us and taking our shame and pain from us so that we no longer have such a (perceived) need to run to sin. He has cured us from our disease and symptoms in one fall swoop.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
