Monday, May 11, 2009

Not really.

"SECULAR MEDIA FOCUSES ON THOSE WHO TRY BUT FAIL"

"So Mel Gibson's getting flack for having an affair — something that never happens in Hollywood, but newsworthy because he's hardcore Catholic. Meanwhile, Carrie Prejean continues to be crucified — she's a Christian who posed topless to get work. And of course, there's Bristol Palin — unwed with a baby, talking abstinence."

This is a clip from an article I read this morning. The jist of the article you can get from the title. The secular media is busy destroying Christians, because we're trying and failing, while them ol' sinners in Hollywood never have to take this crap because they never even try to be good.

I disagree with that analysis. I think that the media focuses on people who judge others for crimes that they themselves commit. People don't hate Christians because we fail, they hate us because we pretend we aren't failing, and tell everyone around us what to do.

Christians say an awful lot that "we aren't perfect, just forgiven!" So stop pretending to be perfect, then, stop telling other people to be perfect (my old [slighty fire and brimstony] pastor used to say "the job of a Christian is not to make the world behave better on its way to hell"), and start extending the grace of he who has been forgiven much. 

Wednesday, May 6, 2009

Love

Thinking about love again. Been trying to do the "love your enemy" thing.  Loving people that are difficult to love. Loving people that don't love you back. Loving people that hurt you, or loving people that are bottomless pits of love, or loving people that you'd rather just bash into the ground.

My love doesn't change them. They don't notice my love, or they don't care, or they try to use it to take advantage of me, or it seems to just bounce off of them.

Love can turn into self-righteousness (if you think your love is "helping" someone), or turn into dependence (when what you call love is really neediness of your own) or become hurtful (when "love" becomes a word for "being nice" and niceness isn't what is best).

How do you love someone that doesn't love you? How do you love without it becoming false love?

You're left with a paradox. Maybe love doesn't change other people (or at least, doesn't guaranty a change). But loving other people definitely, and always, changes me. By loving others, I am transformed.

If I am loving because other people need to be loved, than it will turn into self-righteousness, and dependence, and emotional greed. I will let myself be abused in relationships because I need to "love" the person who is hurting me. I will let myself be obsessed with someone, because they "need" me to be "happy" as much as I need them. I will pat myself on the back, because I am lifting up the lonely and the hurt - I, I am their savior.

But if I am loving because God has called me to be a person who loves, then I center my eyes on God, and love away, regardless of the consequences, knowing that I will possibly never see "results" and it may not make anyone "happier", but I will absolutely become stronger, more compassionate, and more capable of love. My capacity for love will expand, and it will stop mattering if my love "changes" the people I meet.

Sunday, May 3, 2009

Humanism, Deism, Jesusism?

Adapted from a reflection paper for my Nietzsche and Secularization class. Good stuff in that class.

No one wants to talk about Jesus!

This includes, to differing extents: Nietzsche, Taylor, my Christian friends, my Buddhist friends, my atheist friends, my favorite Christian rock band growing up, and... me. It’s always about God. Or maybe about “Jesus as Teacher.” Jesus as God is either awkwardly ignored (the theological elephant in the room) or outwardly dismissed.

But the central tenant of Christianity is that God became a human being, which is insane, and that this human being lived in time, under the constraints of time, was documented by historical sources (including secular sources such as Josephus, the non-Christian, Jewish historian of the time), died and was documented as such, and then, with grand mythological flare, came alive again and somehow because of this, humans are capable of being freed from being purely human and can be remade as something greater than human. WTF?!? What kind of an odd compilation of mythology, history, and enchantment is that? But it’s what every Christian church service rests on, what every Christian theology has to bend around, and what every Christian life acknowledges. So why does everyone – me included – want to keep the story to just God? Why, even amongst Christians, is it never about Jesus? Is it because it’s such an inherently awkward story, particularly for the 21st century? (“Yeah, so, like, this Jewish guy was God and he came back to life! Like, sweet, right?”). Instead, we talk about God, and when we talk about Jesus, he is stripped of his status as a God-man (if not in theology, than in casual discussion) and turned into a cross between Gandhi and Kant – wandering around Galilee spreading peace and wisdom.

But as awkward a concept as God becoming man, dying, and coming back to life is, it’s absolutely essential to Christianity. The loss of the divinity of Christ is absolutely the central turning point towards secularization.

Once Jesus loses his divinity, two things happen. First, Christianity becomes a moral system based around following a moral teacher. Moral systems are wonderful, but the loss of enchantment, grace, and the supernatural means that it is only one step more to eliminating God altogether (Charles Taylor is big on this - the loss of enchantment, post-Medieval life, is the beginning of the loss of all religion). Once religion is simply moral rules, then why have a God at all? Why can’t we be moral people, living a flourishing life, without God?  If Jesus is a teacher, and not a supernatural savior, then the focus is on rationality, on human ability to “follow rules,” and on human capability to achieve perfection apart from any outside help. All of these things are completely possible without a God-man.

The second thing that happens is that the moral rules that Jesus himself gave become irrelevant and impossible. How are the commands of Jesus to “give all you have to the poor and follow me,” his promises that his followers would have “no place to lay their heads,” that the poor are “blessed,” sustainable with the kind of Deism that reduces God's plan for humans to having them “ realize the order in their lives which he had planned for their happiness and well being”? (Some more Charles Taylor). When Jefferson removed the divinity of Jesus from him, what he did was make Jesus absurd (how could he make such radical and impossible demands on people?) and irrelevant (since his actual demands are so high, it is impossible that we follow them in reality, so we can admire Jesus from a distance while being entirely off the hook for any real life-change). Jesus’ actual teachings are so insane if taken literally that it seems that the only way to deal with him is to place him in a specific historical context, “mummify” him as a “good teacher” (even while we do not take his commandments literally) and proceed to live a life that “flourishes”.

 If Christianity is just deism and religious humanism, then its lifestyle demands are too radical. But if Jesus was divine, then his commands aren’t just “do this” into a void of human inability, but empowered by him. If Christianity is actually supernatural, then maybe we can become beings that are capable of immense sacrifice, immense love, and immense freedom. Without supernatural help, however, Jesus was a naive 1st century radical who failed to comprehend humanity. Charles Taylor talks a lot about “transcending flourishing": Living a life that's more than just "the good life." This sort of life is impossible without a reality of Jesus as divine.