We have created the narrative of a world where God is not necessary, where we live by our own standards and disregard as tyrants those who would call us to something different, even if that different thing is for our betterment. We have left the building of towers to heaven to the ancients and instead tried to bring God down to ourselves, where we removed His crown, placed it upon our own heads and spent the rest of our lives staring at ourselves in the mirror.
Friday, January 7, 2011
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
A Moment with Pastor Bonhoeffer Part 1
When the Puritans wanted to know if their community was in right relationship with God they looked to the harvest. If the harvest for the community was plentiful they knew that they had lived in a pleasing way before the Lord. If the harvest was bad then they knew that at least one individual in the community was living in unrepentant sin. This being the case they would collect the people of the community into the church where the pastor would preach a sermon known as a Jeremiad*. Named after the "weeping prophet" Jeremiah of the Old Testament who was famous for calling the people of Israel to repent with great emotion, Jeremiads were sermons designed to call the congregation back to a right relationship with Jesus and repentance from sin that was dominating their lives.
The basic assumption of this practice was quite simple. If Jesus is happy with us then he will reward us in the exact manner and timing that we expect. If we do not get the thing we want/desire/suppose we need in our exact timing then He must be mad at us and if that is the case then we must repent in dust and ashes so that His wrath doesn't fall on us. If Jesus likes you He gives you things. If He doesn't then He is withholding.
The practice came from, what I am convinced is, a poor theological framework. Nowhere in Scripture is the idea expressed that prosperity is designed for those with whom the Lord is happy. I can't think of any Bible believing Christian who would explicitly say that the Puritans were right in their thinking. Most would say that they were quite wrong. One can point to the Egyptian nation who defied God and still enjoyed centuries of prosperity, while a man like Job could live a life pleasing before God and have everything taken away from him. The way the Lord works is beyond our comprehension that the reasons for events beyond our ability to categorize. No one would deny this. And yet I still find myself and others guilty of the fallacy of the Puritans.
When things are going well I rarely consider how my life and choices are impacting God, whether He is content or disappointed. When things are bad I immediately retreat to the notion that I am being punished for some great sin. In essence this is line of thinking is more in line with the Prosperity Gospel than Biblical Evangelicalism. The thinking is that if I live well I will be rewarded, if I live poorly I will be punished. This isn't Biblical Christianity. The Lord lets the sun shine on the just and unjust alike. His ways are unknowable. Why things happen the way they do is beyond our ability to comprehend. All I can do in the good times and the bad is know that the Lord is God, nothing is out of His control and all things work out for the good of those who love Him. But what that "good" looks like might not be what I expect.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer addressed this very issue when he was writing to the Confessing Church pastors who were fighting against the Nazi takeover of the German Church and nation. They were beginning to get discouraged wondering if they had been wrong by choosing the path they had. By this time pastors were being imprisoned and some had even been murdered. The dark times were just beginning and their was no light in sight. This brought them to an existential crisis where they asked themselves "what if we were wrong? Why hasn't God delivered us yet?" In a letter to these pastors Bonhoeffer spoke powerfully to this issue:
The basic assumption of this practice was quite simple. If Jesus is happy with us then he will reward us in the exact manner and timing that we expect. If we do not get the thing we want/desire/suppose we need in our exact timing then He must be mad at us and if that is the case then we must repent in dust and ashes so that His wrath doesn't fall on us. If Jesus likes you He gives you things. If He doesn't then He is withholding.
The practice came from, what I am convinced is, a poor theological framework. Nowhere in Scripture is the idea expressed that prosperity is designed for those with whom the Lord is happy. I can't think of any Bible believing Christian who would explicitly say that the Puritans were right in their thinking. Most would say that they were quite wrong. One can point to the Egyptian nation who defied God and still enjoyed centuries of prosperity, while a man like Job could live a life pleasing before God and have everything taken away from him. The way the Lord works is beyond our comprehension that the reasons for events beyond our ability to categorize. No one would deny this. And yet I still find myself and others guilty of the fallacy of the Puritans.
When things are going well I rarely consider how my life and choices are impacting God, whether He is content or disappointed. When things are bad I immediately retreat to the notion that I am being punished for some great sin. In essence this is line of thinking is more in line with the Prosperity Gospel than Biblical Evangelicalism. The thinking is that if I live well I will be rewarded, if I live poorly I will be punished. This isn't Biblical Christianity. The Lord lets the sun shine on the just and unjust alike. His ways are unknowable. Why things happen the way they do is beyond our ability to comprehend. All I can do in the good times and the bad is know that the Lord is God, nothing is out of His control and all things work out for the good of those who love Him. But what that "good" looks like might not be what I expect.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer addressed this very issue when he was writing to the Confessing Church pastors who were fighting against the Nazi takeover of the German Church and nation. They were beginning to get discouraged wondering if they had been wrong by choosing the path they had. By this time pastors were being imprisoned and some had even been murdered. The dark times were just beginning and their was no light in sight. This brought them to an existential crisis where they asked themselves "what if we were wrong? Why hasn't God delivered us yet?" In a letter to these pastors Bonhoeffer spoke powerfully to this issue:
"We then speak as though we no longer had 'a proper joy and certainty' about this way, still worse, as though God and and His Word were no longer as clearly present with us as they used to be. In all this we are ultimately trying to get round what the New Testament calls 'patience' and 'testing.' Paul, at any rate, did not begin to reflect whether his way was the right one when opposition and suffering threatened, nor did Luther. They were both quite certain and glad that they should remain disciples and followers of their Lord. Dear Brethren, our real trouble is not doubt about the way upon which we have set out, but our failure to be patient, to keep quiet. We still cannot imagine that today God really doesn't want anything new from us, but simply prove us in the old way. That is too petty, too monotonous, too undemanding for us. And we simply cannot be content with the fact that God's cause is not always the successful one, that we really could be 'unsuccessful'; and yet be on the right road. But this is where we find out whether we have begun in faith or in a burst of enthusiasm."
The Christian's life is not validated by his success in this life. One's faith is not proven by the condition of his life. The Christian finds his identity in Christ, his worth and value is found in the fact that Jesus took the punishment for his sins and died for him that he might spend eternity with Christ. Faith in Christ who died for man on the cross is what makes a man a Christian. He is eternally sealed to Him forever. Nothing can shake or break that. Life gets hard. We will find ourselves in times of plenty and in times of want. But God remains constant. He is the one who united us to Himself and He will not let us go. A change has to be made in our own minds (my own mind!) where circumstances do not dictate the quality of our relationship with God, but simply provide an opportunity for that relationship to be strengthened. Those who desire faith will be given it, but often with tears. We know the Lord is content with us because He is content with the work Christ has done. We live lives seeking to honor Him as a rightful response, in love, for what He has done. Joys and difficulties are not meant to reflect our relationship with Christ, but to strengthen it. The secret is to endure, never quit, and continue hoping in the Lord, come what may.
*Out of this tradition we get Thanksgiving.
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
The Spirit of Christmas
I don't think Bill Maher and I would be buddies. Maybe we would? I make a mean fried chicken. Maybe he'd be into that. But I'm not really a fan of his. I am always interested in people who are so avidly against what I believe in, part of me feels obligated to understand their position if I am ever going to hope they will understand mine. But I find it even hard to understand where he comes from at times. In practice I see him being guilty of a lot of the things he accuses Christians of being (arrogant close-mindedness as an example). But I have to admit that I agree with him on this (warning: foul language):
I could expand on this topic more I think I will let it speak for itself for now. While I'm not against having material possessions I think we're heading in a dangerous direction. Having things is not bad, but finding our identity in them and being driven by a constant desire for more is incredibly dangerous. Its a very strange new form of gluttony.
I could expand on this topic more I think I will let it speak for itself for now. While I'm not against having material possessions I think we're heading in a dangerous direction. Having things is not bad, but finding our identity in them and being driven by a constant desire for more is incredibly dangerous. Its a very strange new form of gluttony.
The Gloves Come Off
My last essay discussed how inadequately stocked Christian book stores are these days when it comes to books that are of any consequence. Because Bible covers were occupying the space that was meant for history books I came down at least moderately hard on those Bible covers. Over the last week I had conversations with a few different people about whether or not I was too hard on Bible book stores or not hard enough. I felt I was gentle while also making my point plain. No need to hurt any one's feelings. I felt that way, that is, until I went to the Bible book store again this morning to get my last Christmas present. Then I found this:
I no longer feel a need to be nice. This is either the saddest or funniest thing in the Christian book store, I can't decide. Well that's not totally fair, this is merely indicative of many products that Christian book stores are peddling. Every single brand that exists, from Adidas to the Republican party has Christian parody propaganda replicating their appearance. I'm pretty sure this is up there as the most ridiculous though. "I have an idea: lets cover peoples' beautifully leather bound, golden edged book that's contain the very words of God Himself, His main revelation of Himself to humanity, and put it in a really tacky case that is a semi-clever riff on a video game that was incredibly popular two years ago and has since decreased in significance in the culture, that will make us look relevant to society."
I hope I don't hurt any one's feelings with this, but its a frustrating thing. When I think of the creators of this product I can only think of two possible things that could be going on in their minds when they came up with this idea. One option is they think this is a really good idea and they are incredibly proud of the work they have done. If this is the case, which is a scary proposition, then we should not be buying this kind of product because we owe it to them to save them from themselves. When I was a kid I played basketball. I wasn't the most terrible thing in the world but I wasn't that good. Add to that that I was short then and am as an adult only 5'5" and you have the clear makings of a boy who had the potential to be anything he wanted, just not a basketball player. There was no sense in hoping that I was gonna make a career, or even really a hobby, out of basketball. I wasn't going to be Bugsy Malone. My parents were nice to me about it, but they made it clear that I should focus on hobbies I was better suited for, like sitting and reading, or theater, stuff that didn't require height. Did it hurt my little feelings? Absolutely! Were they right? I don't think anyone in all of human history has been more right about anything. If my parents had tried to encourage me on then the end result would have only been hurt, disappointment and embarrassment. We need to do for these people what my parents did for me: stop encouraging them because they are going in the wrong direction. This kind of thing needs to stop, and it will only stop when we stop giving them our money for making ridiculous products. I can only do so much people! I need your help. Stop buying silly knock-offs of pop culture products. Only then will they stop being made, and maybe when that happens something clever will take its place, something that has some artistic and real spiritual merit. Stop the madness before it goes any further.
The other option for what these creators are thinking is far more sinister and I hope its not true, but I fear it is. People make products like this because they think we're stupid. They have no respect for us. They don't think we want or desire anything with more artistic or aesthetic appeal because they don't think we'll appreciate it. They figure we'll be happy with the manipulation of a popular icon, justify its existence with a vague verse then display it. Job done. We'll just buy stuff because its Christian. We should demand more from the things we buy. Its not my place to decide whether or not people who make these products are Christians. But I can say that its an easy market to tap into. You don't have to come up with anything original, just "Christianize" items in pop culture then take a long lunch. When I saw this Bible cover my first thought was "man, they really think we're idiots." The people who make this kind of thing should have more respect for us. We should demand more respect.
I don't really understand Bible covers to begin with. So I'm probably not the market for this. But it confuses me to no end that these kinds of things even exist. And I'm sure if they are in the store they are in the real world. Which means someone is walking around carrying their Bible in one of these cases. And as they do people are giving them strange looks and asking themselves "how long has it been since Guitar Hero and Rock Band were even cool?"
I no longer feel a need to be nice. This is either the saddest or funniest thing in the Christian book store, I can't decide. Well that's not totally fair, this is merely indicative of many products that Christian book stores are peddling. Every single brand that exists, from Adidas to the Republican party has Christian parody propaganda replicating their appearance. I'm pretty sure this is up there as the most ridiculous though. "I have an idea: lets cover peoples' beautifully leather bound, golden edged book that's contain the very words of God Himself, His main revelation of Himself to humanity, and put it in a really tacky case that is a semi-clever riff on a video game that was incredibly popular two years ago and has since decreased in significance in the culture, that will make us look relevant to society."
I hope I don't hurt any one's feelings with this, but its a frustrating thing. When I think of the creators of this product I can only think of two possible things that could be going on in their minds when they came up with this idea. One option is they think this is a really good idea and they are incredibly proud of the work they have done. If this is the case, which is a scary proposition, then we should not be buying this kind of product because we owe it to them to save them from themselves. When I was a kid I played basketball. I wasn't the most terrible thing in the world but I wasn't that good. Add to that that I was short then and am as an adult only 5'5" and you have the clear makings of a boy who had the potential to be anything he wanted, just not a basketball player. There was no sense in hoping that I was gonna make a career, or even really a hobby, out of basketball. I wasn't going to be Bugsy Malone. My parents were nice to me about it, but they made it clear that I should focus on hobbies I was better suited for, like sitting and reading, or theater, stuff that didn't require height. Did it hurt my little feelings? Absolutely! Were they right? I don't think anyone in all of human history has been more right about anything. If my parents had tried to encourage me on then the end result would have only been hurt, disappointment and embarrassment. We need to do for these people what my parents did for me: stop encouraging them because they are going in the wrong direction. This kind of thing needs to stop, and it will only stop when we stop giving them our money for making ridiculous products. I can only do so much people! I need your help. Stop buying silly knock-offs of pop culture products. Only then will they stop being made, and maybe when that happens something clever will take its place, something that has some artistic and real spiritual merit. Stop the madness before it goes any further.
The other option for what these creators are thinking is far more sinister and I hope its not true, but I fear it is. People make products like this because they think we're stupid. They have no respect for us. They don't think we want or desire anything with more artistic or aesthetic appeal because they don't think we'll appreciate it. They figure we'll be happy with the manipulation of a popular icon, justify its existence with a vague verse then display it. Job done. We'll just buy stuff because its Christian. We should demand more from the things we buy. Its not my place to decide whether or not people who make these products are Christians. But I can say that its an easy market to tap into. You don't have to come up with anything original, just "Christianize" items in pop culture then take a long lunch. When I saw this Bible cover my first thought was "man, they really think we're idiots." The people who make this kind of thing should have more respect for us. We should demand more respect.
I don't really understand Bible covers to begin with. So I'm probably not the market for this. But it confuses me to no end that these kinds of things even exist. And I'm sure if they are in the store they are in the real world. Which means someone is walking around carrying their Bible in one of these cases. And as they do people are giving them strange looks and asking themselves "how long has it been since Guitar Hero and Rock Band were even cool?"
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Loving History (or "Why We Should Be Very Very Afraid")
I admit I watch The Daily Show because it is hilarious, and because I think Jon Stewart is one of the most interesting comedians/tv personalities working today, carrying an influence, reputation and charm that may one day be compared only second to Johnny Carson himself. This is all conjecture, but I'm nearly positive I am right. But that is not the main reason I watch The Daily Show. I watch it to support it. When you watch a tv show or movie, buy an artist's album, see a play, or purchase a book at Borders you're essentially voting for that thing you're purchasing-validating its existence, requesting that the creator continues making similar product, and calling for those in the business of that medium to continue making more products in the same vain. I watch The Daily Show because I support (at least in part-never in whole) what it represents, at least in my mind. That being the repopularization of intellectualism. For all the things that I don't fully agree with, the prospect that a show like this can bring people back to analytical thinking, appreciation for high ideas, and learning (especially when lacking the motivation that a school provides) is something to support. I believe this is a great thing to fight for, because in the age of reality tv and politicians taking off their ties and wearing flannel to tell us "I'm just like you... I did go to Harvard and I own a controlling interest in a major league baseball team... but I'm still just like you" intellectualism is taking a nose dive.
The popular conscience has not been penetrated yet, but this is a start. We seem to revel in not knowing, in gut reaction over informed decision. Being cool is more important than being informed. Comfort and safety is a more worthy pursuit than knowledge.
This really only started bothering me the other day when I was at a local Christian book store looking for a good present for a friend. After I found a good book for him I began doing what I always do in book stores: mining every isle to see what books there were, which ones I wanted to read, which ones I could only ask why it would exist. And I found this:
The popular conscience has not been penetrated yet, but this is a start. We seem to revel in not knowing, in gut reaction over informed decision. Being cool is more important than being informed. Comfort and safety is a more worthy pursuit than knowledge.
This really only started bothering me the other day when I was at a local Christian book store looking for a good present for a friend. After I found a good book for him I began doing what I always do in book stores: mining every isle to see what books there were, which ones I wanted to read, which ones I could only ask why it would exist. And I found this:
This picture* is take in the section marked "history." One would assume that in the section reserved for history books there would be books on Church history. This is not a barren area in the world of the written word. There are thousands of volumes on the topic. Even personally I have enough books on Church history to fill this single five shelfed section. But instead of there being any books on great leaders of the Church, or on the progression of theological ideas, or on the progress of the Church from the post-apostolic age to neo-evangelicalism there are a bunch of Bible covers. Bible covers! There was not one history book. My problem with Bible covers? They are nice and all (the butterfly on the cover seems pleasant, especially if it is intended to represent the transformation of the believer in Christ, rather than because they are pretty) but they aren't essential. Knowledge of history is essential.
I understand supply and demand. I know that if people were buying Church history books people would be selling them (they are writing them, they just aren't being marketed). I don't totally blame the store. But when I looked around the store I didn't find much to encourage me. The theology section is only a little more improved, but each of those books is written by authors who are still living, no sense of history there. Now, what books were well stocked and selling? The fiction section was huge with not one Bible cover to be found. Wall to wall there were books with girls with bonnets on covers. Those covers that were bonnetless were decorated in lightning bolts, dark clouds, or anything else that makes you think "This looks like a book Stephen King would write if he were a Christian." Funny enough, the fiction section, with all its books about people living on the prairie is the closest the whole place came to anything resembling history. I suppose I should be grateful and less snarky about that.
Full disclosure, I was a Church history major in college. So clearly I am biased to the subject. But arguing that more people should be aware of Church history doesn't benefit me in any way-actually one can make the argument that it hurts me, if people would just read a few books on Church history (even skim them), they would know as much as I would and all my anecdotes would be undercut-I see no more money in my pocket. My ramen noodles won't taste better. I want people to read history because I believe that its important. The old idiom that those who don't learn from the past are doomed to repeat it is entirely true. We need history, we need to learn from it, otherwise we're going to be a broken record, never progressing, always repeating the same beats.
People don't understand why I don't trust Rob Bell. Most think I'm close minded or something clever like that, I've been accused of not having progressive enough thinking, being afraid of change. One guy tried to argue that I was too modern. I'm glad he said it because I hadn't laughed enough that day until then. After that I met my quota. Why don't I trust him? Because historically every "controvertial" thing he has said was also said by liberal theologians and pastors BACK IN THE 1920'S!!! How progressive can anyone be if their statements are more or less retreadings of arguments made 90 years ago? These liberal theologians and pastors were debunked and argued against all that time ago. Their whole theological framework was abandoned to be repackaged several more times over the last century. The claims he makes, the ideas he "introduced" were also made by men who, long before any of us were born, separated themselves from evangelicalism and if they didn't evangelical theologians and pastors were showing them the door. Now the same ideas are back again. "Yeah, but he does say some really encouraging things, and stuff that makes me think." One, I'm not sure thats worth the damage he does, two, I haven't found one thing he's said that is constructive that Luther, Calvin, Augustine, Moody, Schaeffer, Lewis, Spurgeon, or Bonhoeffer et al hasn't said (much less what is found in Scripture itself), and hasn't said it better.
Through reading about Church history, and reading works written by major figures I have learned so much that I fail to have to space to describe it all here. But I will certainly try to at least give an idea:
- Martin Luther taught me to deal with guilt when I was drowning in it. He helped me to further understand what it means to find my identity in Christ, not in my own actions or how anyone else saw me.
- Kierkegaard taught me to work through melancholy, the beauty of the individual, the dangers of a cultural religion, and the dangers of disregarding the importance of the Church.
- When John Wesley was sailing to England he encountered a severe storm that caused him to fear for his life. When he noticed a group of believers who showed no fear of death he was shocked. After they had arrived safely he asked them why they were not afraid. They responded that they saw no reason to be afraid of death, they were going to heaven. This group of people were called the Morovians. This is one of my favorite stories in church history. Why should a believer fear death? Amazing.
- Studying the persecuted Church brought me to greater appreciation for every right I enjoy now.
- Hearing about men and women willingly facing death because they refused to deny Christ forces me to ask why I am not more bold.
These are just a few examples. There are plenty more stories I could tell (DL Moody giving up his financially successful job to work with street kids to the point where he was out of money and sleeping on chairs in the closet of the YMCA comes to mind) to show how valuable history is. We have the opportunity to learn from men and women who have lived before us, saving ourselves the trouble and pain that they went through. As well as being encouraged and taught by them. That is essentially what the poem "The Weight of Glory" was trying to communicate.
If we don't study history we rob ourselves of its benefits. We cheat ourselves. We shouldn't knowingly allow that to happen. We have a rich heritage, and a wealth of knowledge at our disposal, but instead of trying to tap into that we're doing everything we can to make sure our Bibles look at pretty as possible. What a shame.
*I was about to apologize for the quality of the photo taken by my camera phone, then I realized how crazy it was to begin with that I could take a picture with my phone, send it to my email and then place it on this blog. Who cares that the quality isn't 1080i thats still pretty crazy.
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Pacifism is So Confusing (the essay that was supposed to be "Why I'm Am a Pacifist [no offense Mr. Lewis]")
About six months ago I told some people that I was going to write an essay about why I am a pacifist and the aforementioned people got very excited. The basic set up for the essay was that I was going to defend the pacifist stance Biblically and (at least in some way) go against what CS Lewis wrote in his essay "Why I Am Not A Pacifist." It was going to be bold, daring stuff. At least that is what I dreamed. But then I started doing some examining of the issue and of my own writing and came to the conclusion that I'm not all that bold of a writer. I rarely say anything that shakes things up. Generally I'd say that my thoughts are so obvious they sound new, but rarely do I write anything that would offend people. But no matter what I write here I am going to offend someone, which might be the reason people found this topic more interesting than most others that I have written.
While in Chicago I went to a theological conference where renowned professors examined different theologians' teachings on the Sermon on the Mount. One professor (I think he was from Duke or something like that) did his lecture on Karl Bart and Dietrich Bonhoeffer's pacifist agenda that they drew back to Christ's teachings in Matthew 5-7. This professor (who's name I am sure smarter people would remember) explained that, according to his understanding of both the theologians in question and his biblical understanding, a Christian has no Biblical support for responding in violence towards a violent attacker, especially if that attacker is not a Christian who's eternity is secure. It would be better for a Christian to die passively and go to Heaven then for that Christian to respond in violence and kill someone who would be damned to eternity. This included responding in violence should family members be attacked and their lives be in danger.
The interesting thing about hearing a committed pacifist explain his love for all people (inspired by care for their eternal souls) that inspires him to never respond in violence is that it made so many people angry. Most of the conference speakers read their papers, answered a few questions and then left the stage. After this session the question and answer time lasted nearly as long as the actual lecture. Granted, the professor probably prodded people a little, but all the same it was amazing to see people get so upset about pacifism. One attendee came up to the mic and looked visibly agitated and ready for a rhetorical brawl. he could hardly get out his question, his emotions were causing him to trip over his words as they made their way out his mouth. The professor seemed to be enjoying this. Finally (with some "ums" and "uhhhs" and a few deep exhales and guffaws) he asked "so what you're telling me is that if a man broke into YOUR house, while YOUR family was sleeping, and took YOUR children and YOUR wife, and knowing you had the ability to stop him, he put a gun to THEIR heads..." before he could finish the sentence the lecturer dropped this little bomb that sucked the air out of the room (it was more like a declaration): "Well I suppose they would have to die!" The guy tried to retort, but before he could the lecturer elaborated, "Listen, I know this isn't easy, that it goes against our instincts, but if we really believe that these people have souls that go onto eternity how can we as Christians, in good conscience, send them to hell?! Would it not be better to give up your own life than to take theirs?!"
Hearing that, the pacifist agenda made so much sense. Its a romantic, anti-cultural perspective that feels almost cool to hold. How much guts does it take to believe and say what that professor did? To have views that consistent, that unorthodox, and that grounded in conviction seems really bold and cool. Unfortunately I am just not that bold, or cool, or consistent, or grounded enough in my convictions, or able enough to see the world in black and white that I can't, in all honesty, hold this view. I want to, I really do, but there are just too many factors that I'm sure a professor from Duke can argue against, but I can't right now in my own heart.
The first major problem for me (and the main thing that made me nervous to write this essay for the last six or so months) is that I know a pacifist stance stands at odds with so many of my friends, at a very practical and personal level. Personally I can take this stance, but I can't mandate it on a universal level because then what do I say to my friends in the military, who are giving up parts of their lives for my country? Do I tell them it is sin to take the lives of those with whom our country is fighting when it is Biblical for them to honor their leaders and follow their directions? Does this force them into a moral dilemma where, under my convictions, they are forced to get out of the military? I don't think I could call anyone to that. I was fearful in writing this that I would alienate and insult them. They don't deserve that. This issue of pacifism and military action is not written in black and white, there are awkward shades of grey I am not fully able to process or help other to.
I suppose I can say that I decided a long time ago that I would not join the military, and if I were drafted I would even risk prison time and be a conscientious objector, rather than fight (or I could have become a Quaker, which would have saved me from prison but would have forced me to be a Quaker... no plan is perfect). But that is my personal conviction.
There are those who do not hold my view and I commend them for being consistent in their conviction to follow their government and defend their country, especially in the face of tyranny. That is another of the difficult things about this, while we're on the military aspect of this argument. I cannot speak badly against people fighting to save innocent lives from oppression and tyranny. Clearly God despises those things and calls the able to free the oppressed and deliver them. Sometimes this is accomplished through diplomacy, but I am not naive enough to say that military action is never needed or warranted. And I am sure that God can use Christians to this end (Bonhoeffer, himself a dedicated pacifist was a part of one of the assassination attempts to kill Hitler.). I just know that I am not one of those people. So while I am a pacifist when it comes to military action I do not believe pacifism can be mandated.
On to this issue of defending wives, kids, pets, etc. In my heart what that professor said makes so much sense to me. How can I take part in delivering a person to Hell, or even punishing him for his actions when the Lord so clearly states that that is His department and not mine? I want to believe that I would trust the Lord with my loved ones' souls and sacrifice them to give a potential murderer one more chance to understand the hope and joy that I have found, but I don't think I completely can. While I am not married and have no kids I know how I feel about my family and friends, and I am confident that I will brave Hell itself to keep them safe and unharmed. I will gladly die for any one of them, but I cannot give any one of them up passively, even if theologically it makes sense to do so. Perhaps its a natural instinct given to us by God, or maybe it is selfishness, I'm not sure, but I just couldn't bring myself to even think about standing and doing nothing while my family is taken from me. Life just isn't that simple for me to be able to say that. Even watching my family or friends get hurt in even the smallest of ways makes me capable of doing things I wouldn't do on a regular day, I just don't imagine that in that moment of my family being in danger I could be thinking about anything else other then protecting them from harm.
One professor I had spoke about pacifism in the Sermon on the Mount and said that the actions Jesus is talking about are not life threatening. We are told to turn the other cheek when someone slaps us or to give someone our shirt when they ask for our coat, but we are not told to give up our lives. I'm not sure if this totally makes sense to me. I still have a problem with the idea of sending a murderer to Hell by killing him myself, but it seems like something that needs to be mentioned in the exploration of pacifism: that Jesus' stance on pacifism was held on the basis of non-lethal violence. Why no apostle (who heard this sermon in person) fought back when they were lethally attacked wasn't really addressed in that lecture.
Onward we go to another issue, and that is when pacifism means letting yourself get walked all over by anyone and everyone. I admit I am kind of a passive person to begin with, which is probably why pacifism appeals to me in the first place. Proactive guys who dream of spearing boars in their free time probably don't think about it as nearly as much as I do (okay, there is probably no one who thinks about this as much as I do), good for them. But I hate being walked all over and taken for granted. This feeling has grown as I have gotten older and gotten sick of being taken advantage of. I have learned to fight for myself and make sure that I am not anyone's door mat. It is a horrible feeling to be objectified or used. And a person who is passive (which is not always the same as being a person who is a pacifist-who's stance comes from theological or philosophical conviction rather than from not having any spine to speak of) will never get anything and spend most of their lives bitter and disillusioned. This isn't what I want for myself or for anyone I love. When I think about my nephew getting picked on or mocked (even as an abstract concept) it gets me upset. I want him to know how to stand up to bullies and fight for truth and justice. I don't want him to go through the hurt that comes with never fighting for what he believes in or defending his own or his family's or loved one's honor.
If someone is trying to use me for their own gain without consideration of how that will affect me I have to stand up to them in order to save my own spine from becoming gelatinous. I, and every person, am deserving of more than that and I cannot allow it. It would be a horrible way to live if I did. I cannot be a person who takes every fight that is offered to me, but I also can't be a person who avoids every fight because I am afraid.
This view probably runs contrary to the true pacifist and I may be wrong in holding it, but I can not do otherwise. If someone is doing something wrong to a loved one it must be stopped. If someone is proclaiming false doctrine and misleading people then I cannot just allow it to happen, I have to call it out and fight against it. There is no option of saying "well he has his views, who am I to judge?" If someone is misleading innocent people they have to be called out (I'm looking at you emergent and health and wealth gospel people). If someone is taking advantage of me or my friends to get what they want I have to put my foot down and not allow that to happen ever again. I suppose that would make me a bad pacifist, or not a pacifist at all, and I'm okay with that.
I'm not sure where that leaves me. Maybe I can call myself a sight-specific-pacifist, where my pacifism ebbs and flows based on the circumstances. I know that isn't consistent or rock solid, but its the best that I have. In my heart I cannot imagine hurting anyone (although I am certainly capable, which is a different sort of issue all together), and I hope I am never forced to. But I can't be consistant in pacifism because its just too complex of an issue, with too many variables. You could, reasonably, respond "oh Tyler, I wish that you where either cold or hot, but since you are lukewarm I will spit you out of my mouth." Well said hypothetical person. I sit in the middle of men who are solid in their convictions: C.S. Lewis (among others) who was clearly no a pacifist and Dietrich Bonhoeffer (again, among others) who clearly was. Someday when I go home perhaps the three of us can talk it out.
A day later:
I have received some comments that show the shortcomings in my essay. I didn't think I was so much claiming pacifist dogma as much as I was showing my sympothy towards it while also showing some of its pit falls. I'm not a pacifist. I more wanted to examine the issue than write an essay that gave a solid answer about what position is right.
So here are some thoughts I received that might be helpful to consider as either an alternative to mine or a more complete thought (this first comment brings God's sovereignty into the issue, which is sadly something I didn't think of but it helps complete the argument and show the weakness in what that Duke professor was teaching:
As someone who believes in the sovereignty of God, I'd argue that we cannot send anyone to hell. When everyone stands before Christ at the final judgment, I do not believe anyone will be able to say, "If only I'd had a little longer. If only that person had spoke up. If only someone had told me. If only...." Rather as in the story of Lazarus (Lk 16:19-31), it would not matter what someone experienced or how much time they were given. In the story, Abraham is in the afterlife and responds to the rich man who is pleading with him to send a sign to his brothers who are living wrongly on the earth, and Abraham responds saying, "If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead" (Lk 16.31). If God loves someone enough to send His own Son to perish that they might be saved, then I believe He will do everything in His power to see to it that people freely respond to his gracious initiatives. In the end, the only reason people will truly go to hell is because "they refused to love the truth and so be saved" (2 Thes 2.10).
Here is someone going into military:
But since I'm joining the army, my ideals obviously differ. I understand the concept of letting yourself be harmed and not reacting with violence in order to promote a more peaceful world or not wanting to harm the individual. But I can not let myself refrain from killing another if that is the only way to stop them from killing another innocent individual. But it was nice to see a different point of view, don't want to always be hearing things I already agree with.
While in Chicago I went to a theological conference where renowned professors examined different theologians' teachings on the Sermon on the Mount. One professor (I think he was from Duke or something like that) did his lecture on Karl Bart and Dietrich Bonhoeffer's pacifist agenda that they drew back to Christ's teachings in Matthew 5-7. This professor (who's name I am sure smarter people would remember) explained that, according to his understanding of both the theologians in question and his biblical understanding, a Christian has no Biblical support for responding in violence towards a violent attacker, especially if that attacker is not a Christian who's eternity is secure. It would be better for a Christian to die passively and go to Heaven then for that Christian to respond in violence and kill someone who would be damned to eternity. This included responding in violence should family members be attacked and their lives be in danger.
The interesting thing about hearing a committed pacifist explain his love for all people (inspired by care for their eternal souls) that inspires him to never respond in violence is that it made so many people angry. Most of the conference speakers read their papers, answered a few questions and then left the stage. After this session the question and answer time lasted nearly as long as the actual lecture. Granted, the professor probably prodded people a little, but all the same it was amazing to see people get so upset about pacifism. One attendee came up to the mic and looked visibly agitated and ready for a rhetorical brawl. he could hardly get out his question, his emotions were causing him to trip over his words as they made their way out his mouth. The professor seemed to be enjoying this. Finally (with some "ums" and "uhhhs" and a few deep exhales and guffaws) he asked "so what you're telling me is that if a man broke into YOUR house, while YOUR family was sleeping, and took YOUR children and YOUR wife, and knowing you had the ability to stop him, he put a gun to THEIR heads..." before he could finish the sentence the lecturer dropped this little bomb that sucked the air out of the room (it was more like a declaration): "Well I suppose they would have to die!" The guy tried to retort, but before he could the lecturer elaborated, "Listen, I know this isn't easy, that it goes against our instincts, but if we really believe that these people have souls that go onto eternity how can we as Christians, in good conscience, send them to hell?! Would it not be better to give up your own life than to take theirs?!"
Hearing that, the pacifist agenda made so much sense. Its a romantic, anti-cultural perspective that feels almost cool to hold. How much guts does it take to believe and say what that professor did? To have views that consistent, that unorthodox, and that grounded in conviction seems really bold and cool. Unfortunately I am just not that bold, or cool, or consistent, or grounded enough in my convictions, or able enough to see the world in black and white that I can't, in all honesty, hold this view. I want to, I really do, but there are just too many factors that I'm sure a professor from Duke can argue against, but I can't right now in my own heart.
The first major problem for me (and the main thing that made me nervous to write this essay for the last six or so months) is that I know a pacifist stance stands at odds with so many of my friends, at a very practical and personal level. Personally I can take this stance, but I can't mandate it on a universal level because then what do I say to my friends in the military, who are giving up parts of their lives for my country? Do I tell them it is sin to take the lives of those with whom our country is fighting when it is Biblical for them to honor their leaders and follow their directions? Does this force them into a moral dilemma where, under my convictions, they are forced to get out of the military? I don't think I could call anyone to that. I was fearful in writing this that I would alienate and insult them. They don't deserve that. This issue of pacifism and military action is not written in black and white, there are awkward shades of grey I am not fully able to process or help other to.
I suppose I can say that I decided a long time ago that I would not join the military, and if I were drafted I would even risk prison time and be a conscientious objector, rather than fight (or I could have become a Quaker, which would have saved me from prison but would have forced me to be a Quaker... no plan is perfect). But that is my personal conviction.
There are those who do not hold my view and I commend them for being consistent in their conviction to follow their government and defend their country, especially in the face of tyranny. That is another of the difficult things about this, while we're on the military aspect of this argument. I cannot speak badly against people fighting to save innocent lives from oppression and tyranny. Clearly God despises those things and calls the able to free the oppressed and deliver them. Sometimes this is accomplished through diplomacy, but I am not naive enough to say that military action is never needed or warranted. And I am sure that God can use Christians to this end (Bonhoeffer, himself a dedicated pacifist was a part of one of the assassination attempts to kill Hitler.). I just know that I am not one of those people. So while I am a pacifist when it comes to military action I do not believe pacifism can be mandated.
On to this issue of defending wives, kids, pets, etc. In my heart what that professor said makes so much sense to me. How can I take part in delivering a person to Hell, or even punishing him for his actions when the Lord so clearly states that that is His department and not mine? I want to believe that I would trust the Lord with my loved ones' souls and sacrifice them to give a potential murderer one more chance to understand the hope and joy that I have found, but I don't think I completely can. While I am not married and have no kids I know how I feel about my family and friends, and I am confident that I will brave Hell itself to keep them safe and unharmed. I will gladly die for any one of them, but I cannot give any one of them up passively, even if theologically it makes sense to do so. Perhaps its a natural instinct given to us by God, or maybe it is selfishness, I'm not sure, but I just couldn't bring myself to even think about standing and doing nothing while my family is taken from me. Life just isn't that simple for me to be able to say that. Even watching my family or friends get hurt in even the smallest of ways makes me capable of doing things I wouldn't do on a regular day, I just don't imagine that in that moment of my family being in danger I could be thinking about anything else other then protecting them from harm.
One professor I had spoke about pacifism in the Sermon on the Mount and said that the actions Jesus is talking about are not life threatening. We are told to turn the other cheek when someone slaps us or to give someone our shirt when they ask for our coat, but we are not told to give up our lives. I'm not sure if this totally makes sense to me. I still have a problem with the idea of sending a murderer to Hell by killing him myself, but it seems like something that needs to be mentioned in the exploration of pacifism: that Jesus' stance on pacifism was held on the basis of non-lethal violence. Why no apostle (who heard this sermon in person) fought back when they were lethally attacked wasn't really addressed in that lecture.
Onward we go to another issue, and that is when pacifism means letting yourself get walked all over by anyone and everyone. I admit I am kind of a passive person to begin with, which is probably why pacifism appeals to me in the first place. Proactive guys who dream of spearing boars in their free time probably don't think about it as nearly as much as I do (okay, there is probably no one who thinks about this as much as I do), good for them. But I hate being walked all over and taken for granted. This feeling has grown as I have gotten older and gotten sick of being taken advantage of. I have learned to fight for myself and make sure that I am not anyone's door mat. It is a horrible feeling to be objectified or used. And a person who is passive (which is not always the same as being a person who is a pacifist-who's stance comes from theological or philosophical conviction rather than from not having any spine to speak of) will never get anything and spend most of their lives bitter and disillusioned. This isn't what I want for myself or for anyone I love. When I think about my nephew getting picked on or mocked (even as an abstract concept) it gets me upset. I want him to know how to stand up to bullies and fight for truth and justice. I don't want him to go through the hurt that comes with never fighting for what he believes in or defending his own or his family's or loved one's honor.
If someone is trying to use me for their own gain without consideration of how that will affect me I have to stand up to them in order to save my own spine from becoming gelatinous. I, and every person, am deserving of more than that and I cannot allow it. It would be a horrible way to live if I did. I cannot be a person who takes every fight that is offered to me, but I also can't be a person who avoids every fight because I am afraid.
This view probably runs contrary to the true pacifist and I may be wrong in holding it, but I can not do otherwise. If someone is doing something wrong to a loved one it must be stopped. If someone is proclaiming false doctrine and misleading people then I cannot just allow it to happen, I have to call it out and fight against it. There is no option of saying "well he has his views, who am I to judge?" If someone is misleading innocent people they have to be called out (I'm looking at you emergent and health and wealth gospel people). If someone is taking advantage of me or my friends to get what they want I have to put my foot down and not allow that to happen ever again. I suppose that would make me a bad pacifist, or not a pacifist at all, and I'm okay with that.
I'm not sure where that leaves me. Maybe I can call myself a sight-specific-pacifist, where my pacifism ebbs and flows based on the circumstances. I know that isn't consistent or rock solid, but its the best that I have. In my heart I cannot imagine hurting anyone (although I am certainly capable, which is a different sort of issue all together), and I hope I am never forced to. But I can't be consistant in pacifism because its just too complex of an issue, with too many variables. You could, reasonably, respond "oh Tyler, I wish that you where either cold or hot, but since you are lukewarm I will spit you out of my mouth." Well said hypothetical person. I sit in the middle of men who are solid in their convictions: C.S. Lewis (among others) who was clearly no a pacifist and Dietrich Bonhoeffer (again, among others) who clearly was. Someday when I go home perhaps the three of us can talk it out.
A day later:
I have received some comments that show the shortcomings in my essay. I didn't think I was so much claiming pacifist dogma as much as I was showing my sympothy towards it while also showing some of its pit falls. I'm not a pacifist. I more wanted to examine the issue than write an essay that gave a solid answer about what position is right.
So here are some thoughts I received that might be helpful to consider as either an alternative to mine or a more complete thought (this first comment brings God's sovereignty into the issue, which is sadly something I didn't think of but it helps complete the argument and show the weakness in what that Duke professor was teaching:
As someone who believes in the sovereignty of God, I'd argue that we cannot send anyone to hell. When everyone stands before Christ at the final judgment, I do not believe anyone will be able to say, "If only I'd had a little longer. If only that person had spoke up. If only someone had told me. If only...." Rather as in the story of Lazarus (Lk 16:19-31), it would not matter what someone experienced or how much time they were given. In the story, Abraham is in the afterlife and responds to the rich man who is pleading with him to send a sign to his brothers who are living wrongly on the earth, and Abraham responds saying, "If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead" (Lk 16.31). If God loves someone enough to send His own Son to perish that they might be saved, then I believe He will do everything in His power to see to it that people freely respond to his gracious initiatives. In the end, the only reason people will truly go to hell is because "they refused to love the truth and so be saved" (2 Thes 2.10).
Here is someone going into military:
But since I'm joining the army, my ideals obviously differ. I understand the concept of letting yourself be harmed and not reacting with violence in order to promote a more peaceful world or not wanting to harm the individual. But I can not let myself refrain from killing another if that is the only way to stop them from killing another innocent individual. But it was nice to see a different point of view, don't want to always be hearing things I already agree with.
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
A Moment of Self Disclosure
I'm not sure I have ever been in love before. I'm pretty sure I haven't. I mean, I am certain that I have loved before, as in I've cared more for other people more than myself and wanted their best above my own. But love in the romantic, marriage sense... I don't think so. Its been a long time and retrospect has a way of clouding the experience from how I felt at those moments but no... I haven't been in love with anyone up to this point in my life.
What I am certain about though is that I am completely, unashamedly, unquestionably, head-over-heals in love with myself. I'm crazy about me. I think I'm the greatest thing that ever existed and I spare no expense to make sure that I am taken care of, happy, and have everything I could possibly want or desire. I dote on myself, think about myself, and spoil myself more than anyone else in the world.
People I know may be surprised by this. Certainly I am not one to shy away from my defects or call my own shortcomings to everyone's attention. I know my flaws, and struggle with being disappointed and wishing I had done many things in my life differently. But none of that gets in the way of being absolutely crazy about me.
Rampant Materialism
This came to my attention this weekend as I took some time away to think and pray through some issues in my life. I was off in Newport wandering around different stores when I walked into a book store. I can't go into book stores without buying something. Its a problem. This summer I bought a plethora of books because so many good new books came out and there are a back list of books I've wanted to read, plus Amazon has that free shipping if you buy $25 worth of books thing so I figured I'd maximize my purchasing power with that. One thing led to another and I suddenly had a backlog of over a dozen books that sat on my bookshelf and were waiting to be enjoyed by the love of my life, yours truly. I was really just walking around the book store because it was something to do whilest I waited for hunger to set in and the heat to die down outside. Then I found a book that looked interesting. It was not a book that would change my life. It was not a book that was on my radar. But something inside of me reasoned: I must have this book. I had about 14 books at home that I had thought the same thing about too, I had another that I was in the middle of reading. But the child inside of me (or something more or less sinister, I can't say) wanted that immediate gratification. I saw something, I wanted it, I bought it. End of story. The real problem for me was the long trip down the escalator upon leaving my literary utopia-I felt no guilt. All logic told me I did not need this book. I had too many books waiting to entertain me as well as this book could. It would not help me in any way. It was clearly not a necessity to my life. But I needed to have it. And despite all logic that pointed me against it I bought myself a gift.
I'm supposing that's the only way to look at this. I bought myself a gift. You know what is annoying about that? In the last 6 months both my sisters, my brother, and four of my closets friends have had birthdays and I have gotten them nothing. My parents had a wedding anniversary, to celebrate I bought David Foster Wallace's Brief Interviews with Hideous Men for myself. For them? Nothing. That makes me feel like an awful person. But it doesn't stop me from buying myself more stuff I don't need. And it doesn't inspire me to dote on my loved ones as I should.
Its embarrassing to consider that I have hardly kept any (reasonable) pleasure from myself. I'm not hard to please. I just like having books and movies to adorn my shelves and a nice meatball sandwich every now and then. There is no delaying of gratification for me. When I see a book I buy it. When there is a movie I want to see I get it. No questions, no delay, no consideration. Its just three simple steps: want, obtain, repeat.
Me First and the Gimme Gimmes
Sometimes when I'm driving I get tripped out by the idea that each car has a person in it. Each person has a life, friends, family, ambitions, hardships, dreams, failures, character defects, moments of compassion. These are all fully realized human beings going about their lives just like I am. Its crazy to think about that. These aren't just numbers or people in my way, these are real people whom God loves and has created in His image.
Most of the time I don't think like that. While driving I don't see beings made in the image of God. I see cars blocking my ability to get to a location five minutes faster than I would have if they weren't in my way. If I am being honest they are road blocks, moronic people who don't drive nearly as well as my high standards dictate. I don't care about them, their dreams, the fight they just got into with someone they love. I just want them out of my way. I think that makes me a monster.
Now I know I can't know what is going on in each person's life, and it is impossible for me to practically care for each person sitting on the 91 freeway keeping me from my destination, but still... a heart of compassion is always hard to find in my Ford Taurus on any drive I'm on. I wish I could stop being so concerned with getting from point a to point b and instead be patient and caring for those around me. I can't verbally share Christ's love with these people, but I could do a better job of caring for them as Christ would. I would just have to stop caring about myself for a moment and care for someone else more. That's difficult.
In Conclusion
I was talking to a friend the other day, and perhaps because I was too tired or too comfortable (or a combination of the two) I had a moment of self disclosure I usually wouldn't. I admitted to all I said here: that I love myself and am embarrassed by that fact but I still can't seem to get over me. Then I said this "there is no way that a person can spend all day with themselves, thinking about themselves, caring for themselves, without being at least mildly (if not recklessly) in love with themselves." I spend all day with myself, as you spend all day with you. I can't get away from myself if I tried (and believe me I've tried!). That much time with one person brings about one of two things 1) outright hatred and rejection of that person, or 2) a love that is not matched by any other person.
In sin it is easy to love yourself, spoil yourself, put yourself first, at least it is for me. It comes naturally to think about myself first since I'm always with myself. That's not always a bad thing (at least in the interest of self preservation and a healthy amount of confidence), but it is when it prevents us from loving others, putting them first, and practicing the Christian discipline of dying to ourselves. Self gratification is a sinful thing, and I admit to it with shame. But until I admit it there isn't anything I can do about it. Until I realize this unfavorable characteristic there is no hope for change.
Now, who should I go buy a present for tomorrow?
What I am certain about though is that I am completely, unashamedly, unquestionably, head-over-heals in love with myself. I'm crazy about me. I think I'm the greatest thing that ever existed and I spare no expense to make sure that I am taken care of, happy, and have everything I could possibly want or desire. I dote on myself, think about myself, and spoil myself more than anyone else in the world.
People I know may be surprised by this. Certainly I am not one to shy away from my defects or call my own shortcomings to everyone's attention. I know my flaws, and struggle with being disappointed and wishing I had done many things in my life differently. But none of that gets in the way of being absolutely crazy about me.
Rampant Materialism
This came to my attention this weekend as I took some time away to think and pray through some issues in my life. I was off in Newport wandering around different stores when I walked into a book store. I can't go into book stores without buying something. Its a problem. This summer I bought a plethora of books because so many good new books came out and there are a back list of books I've wanted to read, plus Amazon has that free shipping if you buy $25 worth of books thing so I figured I'd maximize my purchasing power with that. One thing led to another and I suddenly had a backlog of over a dozen books that sat on my bookshelf and were waiting to be enjoyed by the love of my life, yours truly. I was really just walking around the book store because it was something to do whilest I waited for hunger to set in and the heat to die down outside. Then I found a book that looked interesting. It was not a book that would change my life. It was not a book that was on my radar. But something inside of me reasoned: I must have this book. I had about 14 books at home that I had thought the same thing about too, I had another that I was in the middle of reading. But the child inside of me (or something more or less sinister, I can't say) wanted that immediate gratification. I saw something, I wanted it, I bought it. End of story. The real problem for me was the long trip down the escalator upon leaving my literary utopia-I felt no guilt. All logic told me I did not need this book. I had too many books waiting to entertain me as well as this book could. It would not help me in any way. It was clearly not a necessity to my life. But I needed to have it. And despite all logic that pointed me against it I bought myself a gift.
I'm supposing that's the only way to look at this. I bought myself a gift. You know what is annoying about that? In the last 6 months both my sisters, my brother, and four of my closets friends have had birthdays and I have gotten them nothing. My parents had a wedding anniversary, to celebrate I bought David Foster Wallace's Brief Interviews with Hideous Men for myself. For them? Nothing. That makes me feel like an awful person. But it doesn't stop me from buying myself more stuff I don't need. And it doesn't inspire me to dote on my loved ones as I should.
Its embarrassing to consider that I have hardly kept any (reasonable) pleasure from myself. I'm not hard to please. I just like having books and movies to adorn my shelves and a nice meatball sandwich every now and then. There is no delaying of gratification for me. When I see a book I buy it. When there is a movie I want to see I get it. No questions, no delay, no consideration. Its just three simple steps: want, obtain, repeat.
Me First and the Gimme Gimmes
Sometimes when I'm driving I get tripped out by the idea that each car has a person in it. Each person has a life, friends, family, ambitions, hardships, dreams, failures, character defects, moments of compassion. These are all fully realized human beings going about their lives just like I am. Its crazy to think about that. These aren't just numbers or people in my way, these are real people whom God loves and has created in His image.
Most of the time I don't think like that. While driving I don't see beings made in the image of God. I see cars blocking my ability to get to a location five minutes faster than I would have if they weren't in my way. If I am being honest they are road blocks, moronic people who don't drive nearly as well as my high standards dictate. I don't care about them, their dreams, the fight they just got into with someone they love. I just want them out of my way. I think that makes me a monster.
Now I know I can't know what is going on in each person's life, and it is impossible for me to practically care for each person sitting on the 91 freeway keeping me from my destination, but still... a heart of compassion is always hard to find in my Ford Taurus on any drive I'm on. I wish I could stop being so concerned with getting from point a to point b and instead be patient and caring for those around me. I can't verbally share Christ's love with these people, but I could do a better job of caring for them as Christ would. I would just have to stop caring about myself for a moment and care for someone else more. That's difficult.
In Conclusion
I was talking to a friend the other day, and perhaps because I was too tired or too comfortable (or a combination of the two) I had a moment of self disclosure I usually wouldn't. I admitted to all I said here: that I love myself and am embarrassed by that fact but I still can't seem to get over me. Then I said this "there is no way that a person can spend all day with themselves, thinking about themselves, caring for themselves, without being at least mildly (if not recklessly) in love with themselves." I spend all day with myself, as you spend all day with you. I can't get away from myself if I tried (and believe me I've tried!). That much time with one person brings about one of two things 1) outright hatred and rejection of that person, or 2) a love that is not matched by any other person.
In sin it is easy to love yourself, spoil yourself, put yourself first, at least it is for me. It comes naturally to think about myself first since I'm always with myself. That's not always a bad thing (at least in the interest of self preservation and a healthy amount of confidence), but it is when it prevents us from loving others, putting them first, and practicing the Christian discipline of dying to ourselves. Self gratification is a sinful thing, and I admit to it with shame. But until I admit it there isn't anything I can do about it. Until I realize this unfavorable characteristic there is no hope for change.
Now, who should I go buy a present for tomorrow?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)