Disorder Above and Below

August 10, 2011 under inthenews, thehumancondition, theology

Two stories about disorder on the BBC yesterday, one in the heavens and on on earth.

The first, an earthly lament about the rioting in England. An anguished headline,

What turns people into looters?

Joe is quizzical by zimpenfish, on Flickr

Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic Licenseby  zimpenfish

What turns people into looters…

Let’s take a look at the hidden narrative in this headline.

We are not bad people, we are not looters! We get turned into them. Ordinarily we are just fine until something external comes over us. Like a prince before an evil witch, we are turned into slimy amphibians.

We have what looks from every angle like a dilemma. How can ordinary people turn into lawless ruffians over the course of five minutes? Where is the witch? What did it?

Of course, the sensible answer is that people didn’t change or turn into anything.
The sensible answer is that the same people only needed the right set of circumstances in order to behave in a new way.

That is disorder below; what about disorder above?

Well, it turns out we are managing to clutter up outer space with alarming amounts of junk. What a mess! The space junk we’re leaving up there is dangerous and it’s smashing into other junk and making more junk and it’s stopping us from putting even more would-be junk up there!

Oh dear! Whatever shall we do?

Joe is quizzical by zimpenfish, on Flickr

Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic Licenseby  zimpenfish

We’d like to get rid of it, the scientist says. But no one is building a system that can clean it up!

Why not? Well, it’s pretty simple. A system which can remove busted satellites from space can also remove non-busted satellites from space. All our governments are nasty, suspicious and afraid of the fallout of building such a system. Diplomatically, it’s unfeasible.

Why? Because they all know what they themselves would do with it, if they had the circumstances to get away with it.

We question why a little bit of social disorder causes us to take up arms against each other (we’re all such decent, ordinary folk!), but if we actually stop to take a look at ourselves, the heartbreaking truth is obvious.

We can’t even take out the trash for fear of one another.

comments: 2 » tags: , , , ,

Authority, Heroism, Transcendence

July 27, 2011 under thehumancondition, theology

About Where the Wild Things Are, Lila writes,

“The tragedy of 21st century N.A. is the weak/seared conscience, superego, Parent–or whatever your favourite psychobabble would dictate. We suffer from too many friends and not enough heroes.”

It’s a very astute observation. (But I don’t know if it’s fair to call out a seared conscience as *the* tragedy of 21st century N.A. :-P  )

I can’t claim to have a finger on the general cultural pulse (I swim in very small circles), but I can testify that in technical arenas where people pride themselves on being “rational”, there is often a general disregard for authority.

When you deconstruct human systems from either a post-modern or naturalistic persepective, it is difficult to find a basis for any kind of real authority. Both naturalistic and postmodern views make the question, “Why should you be the boss of me?” difficult to answer.

In either world personal experience is paramount. A naturalistic approach gives very little basis for elevating anything else, and a postmodern approach confines our mandate to only being concerned with ourselves. In the one, only we exist. In the other, no one has the right to transcend. The idea that we require assistance from outside ourselves (a hero to save us) is blasphemous in either framework. Friends become important because heroes are either fictional or illegal.

Heroes hold authority. Heroes say (usually wordlessly), “You ought to be like me”, but in our one current approach there is no “ought” and in the other it is an unforgiveable sin. The film The Incredibles illustrates this sentiment nicely; in it, the initial charge brought against superheroes is, “You are just extra-strong people like us with no transcendent role or mandate. Furthermore, you are flawed and do not serve the public good, so we will sue you for the harm you cause.”

Looking back at Where the Wild Things Are, the best solution is for authority to lay down the discipline that draws the sting of wildness. This doesn’t mean wiping out exuberence (are Dads ever fun?), but it does mean directing it… and curtailing devastation. Of course, in the film’s world, no such father exists for Max, and no such king exists for the Wild Things. There’s no hero to be found.

It doesn’t make sense to me, however, to set up heroism and friendship as direct foils. In a comic-book world of super-powerful entities, the distance between a hero and a villain is a measure of compassion.

Heroes care, they are involved and present. Heroes struggle with the pain that comes from being close to injury. It hurts to bear someone else’s burden. Heroes weep for lost lives and ask, “Could I have done more?” while the villain taunts, “Why do you waste your time with the weak?”.

Does transcendence preclude friendship?
My entire faith is based on the certainty that it doesn’t.

comments: 0 » tags: , , , , , , ,

All the Science in the world

May 24, 2011 under thehumancondition, theology

… can’t make men good.

We can eradicate a disease but we can’t free ourselves from the fear that someone will use it against us as a biological weapon.

The kicker is, someone might; worse things have been done. It is a rational fear. What value does science place on a human person or on a human life?

Even the cold hearted “survival of the species” so often touted as our genetic purpose is not a scientific value but a human one tacked on to scientific belief. Science is blind to virtue.

comments: 0 » tags: , , ,

SMBC 2225

May 21, 2011 under curios, thehumancondition

Good stuff.

comments: 0 » tags: , ,

The 12 Steps – Step 9 – Amends

April 14, 2011 under lenten, thehumancondition, theology

In this series of posts, I’m reflecting on the 12 steps of Alcoholics Anonymous.

They form a remarkably practical, powerful presentation of the Christian Gospel which is gloriously free from Church language and culture. They are simple to understand, difficult to follow and they hold a massive treasure. The greatest testimony to their worth is that they have proven themselves in the lives of many.

The real world creeps in! The steps do not call us to live in our heads; they demand that we put things right with other people. Irony is at play: we must exclusively seek someone else’s benefit to receive our own. We must reach out to reach in.

Step 9

Made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others.

direct amends

If the steps have taught us anything, it is that we must change. Part of this change is the transforming experience of doing difficult things directly. The steps have repeatedly emphasized our need to work past fears and reservations; even this far in, we still need strong language to keep us from fudging or ducking out.

The degree to which we manage to overcome our fear, shame or anger is directly proportional to the degree of freedom which results. In many ways, it is our freedom, for these things (and the unconfessed sins they protect) are a brutal and crushing burden.

wherever possible

Possibility as used here is a double edged sword. It means that whatever we can do, we must. But it also is a reminder that our overarching search is a search for sanity. We wish to increase sanity and goodness in the lives of others and ourselves. To do this, we must discard the impossible.

Bashing our heads against the impossible is insane; it distracts us from the possible good that we should be doing. Of course, we cannot necessarily trust our selves to say what is possible. In our insanity we may despair of doing something which is, in truth,  readily achievable.

This is why the previous step had us become willing to make amends to all. We resolved within ourselves the possibility of us doing it, and removed, at the very least, the self constructed barriers to us doing so.

except when to do so would injure

Our overarching search is for sanity and goodness. We are, after all, trying to fix and not to break. Here we see the governing principle of love – patient, kind, long-suffering. This step is driven by love of others – consideration for them before ourselves. Our agenda must take a backseat to their welfare.

It is, after all, not even really our agenda! It is God’s, and we must accept the structure of his guidance – that in this case, a greater general concern (love) overrules what a specific directive (make direct amends) points to as a good thing.

It is important to notice that this clause refers only to our action and never to our willingness, which is pre-established and must always remain. If it later becomes possible to amend without injury, we should be still willing to do so.

them or others

Notice the lack of self in this clause. It is all too easy to say, “This hurts me, I should not do it.” We have given care of our lives over to God, anyway! This step indicates that God really does expect us to turn the care of our lives over to him – because here God is requiring us to waive it!

Whether it injures us or not is not a question we should be asking. We have a directive – we need to do this if we want to stay within the steps. If we trust that the steps are leading us towards goodness, we are trusting that we will not be injured, at least not in any way which precludes goodness. Our pride may be injured. It may feel terrible.

But then again, feeling is not always directly proportional to injury, is it?

comments: 0 » tags: , , , , ,

Grappling with Goodness

April 12, 2011 under lenten, thehumancondition, theology

Why does a good God allow bad things to happen?

The character of a God who would desire something, have the power to make it so, and yet not do it is foreign to us. We find it confusing and contradictory that omnipotent God would allow a world where some of the things he desires don’t immediately come about. The conclusion we ultimately arrive at is that either his desires are not good, or he is not powerful, or he doesn’t exist.

We’re just not primed to conceive of a God who wants something but doesn’t take it.

We focus so much of our lives on avoiding pain, avoiding suffering, avoiding discomfort. We try to fill our desires. Patience and long-suffering are not our characteristics.

If we don’t eat, we starve, and the conclusion we come to is that we must guarantee our eating. We have to immediately do something about the things that trouble us. This idea of instant gratification is bad enough when we apply it in our own lives, but when we project it onto God, it causes major theological headaches.

When we expect that God acts like we do we should get ready for disappointment.

comments: 0 » tags: , ,

Shoveling Sh*t

April 9, 2011 under lenten, thehumancondition, theology

This is, in some way, a follow-up to my previous post on the goodness of life. Please pardon the focus on excrement.

Excrement is filthy. It holds all the toxins and bits of food that we don’t want. We associate it with disease (it causes cholera when we drink it), disgrace, poverty and most everything else repulsive. It’s a common metaphor for everything bad that goes on in our lives.

“The sh*t hit the fan”
“You’re in deep sh*t”
“I have so much sh*t going on in my life right now.”

It is a Bad Thing.

But as I’m writing this, my brother is peeking over my shoulder and saying, “Don’t forget its earthy and fertilizing nature.”

We are led to a conundrum. When God looked over Creation and gave it a stamp of approval (he saw that it was good), he was looking over people who ate food – bowel movements and all.

So it is a Good Thing.

Or… it was. And then something changed and things all went south and Adam and Eve got kicked out of the garden. Was there a magic toilet in the garden (“Refuse, be gone.”)? No.

By the time Adam and Eve left the garden, however, they were different people. They had a new penchant for trying to define right and wrong on their own. Same plumbing, different plumbers. They took the first steps on the walk towards today.

Maybe we don’t have a refuse problem. Maybe we have a shoveling problem. That is, we don’t want to do it. And since we are too morally deficient to deal with our own waste properly, we cause ourselves bigger problems.

And we blame it. We call it nasty and filthy and we wish it didn’t happen.

It’s a simple, down to earth example of how we ascribe our badness to God’s goodness. Yes, the badness is there and yes, it needs to be removed, but if we think the badness is anything other than a moral problem (for God’s removal), we are deluded.

Shoveling could be fun. We could hold big shoveling parties where all our friends come out and we tell jokes and get it done in half an hour and where there is no nastiness. If we get dirty there is clean water where we can wash, and no one has a filthy disgusting mind that wants to revile and reject us for it.

But we don’t want to shovel, because we are lazy. We are hung-over and tired from our relentless seeking for what we think is good. We are distracted by the curvy and the pleasant. We don’t want to invite friends, because we are proud and angry. We don’t all have clean water because we are greedy.

Dissention, factions, envy, greed, licentiousness, sexual immorality, rebellion, selfish ambition, and every kind of wickedness come out to play in the human heart. And we blame the shit.

Poor shit.

It’s getting blamed for a change in mankind – a change that’s illustrated by Adam’s hiding before God when he realizes he’s naked.

When Adam’s lack of clothes was revealed, was it revealed to Adam or to God?
Did Adam become ashamed, or did God? All the time previous, was God ever embarrassed to look at bare Adam?

Did God change?

Or did Adam?

How Adam saw the world really changed at a fundamental level. He lost his connection to the heart and mind of God. He started seeing things differently than God did. Adam, not God, was the first to cover bare Adam.

And God, being gracious and merciful, saw Adam’s shame and distress and said, “Your covering isn’t very good, let me sacrifice some of my creation to give you a better.” Our sin does not preclude God’s love.

When Jesus came to earth, he said, “Render unto Caesar”. Give man his due, and give God his. Don’t blame one for the other, don’t praise one for the other. We suffer from Adam’s malady: the chronic inability to see things the same way as God does.

Life is good; thanks be to God.

comments: 2 » tags: , , , , , , , , ,

If God is good

April 6, 2011 under lenten, thehumancondition, theology

Then life must be good, no matter what I think or feel about it.

Can I really believe that God created all things and is above all things – and at the same time claim that man’s badness is greater than God’s goodness?

More likely is that I am misunderstood about the true nature of things. More likely still is that I myself am bad and not fully able to see.

comments: 5 » tags: , , , ,

The 12 Steps – Step 5 – Confession

March 28, 2011 under lenten, thehumancondition, theology

In this series of posts, I’m reflecting on the 12 steps of Alcoholics Anonymous.

They form a remarkably practical, powerful presentation of the Christian Gospel which is gloriously free from Church language and culture. They are simple to understand, difficult to follow and they hold a massive treasure. The greatest testimony to their worth is that they have proven themselves in the lives of many.

Step 5

Admitted to God, to ourselves, and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs.

This step is a wonderfully practical description of how we are to confess. It shows me how much I need to change.

This step builds on step 4 and fleshes out the idea that moral decisions have a bearing on our situation, namely:

  • There are wrong deeds
  • We have committed them
  • The fact that we have committed them is intimately linked to our current situation
  • Confession of these before a sane, caring and powerful God who is able to restore our sanity and goodness is a step towards freedom from the current badness
  • God as we understand him is a God who wills that we do these things

I love how this step is worded.

Admitted to God

Confession is agreement with God on on the nature of things we have done. It means admitting that those things which we justified and rationalized were neither just nor rational.

This step expands the character of God to say that he cares about what we’ve done. This is not at all a given aspect of a powerful God, that he would:

  • Care what the puny humans have done
  • Bother to hear their confession

This step claims both these things. In confessing, we acknowledge that there is a truth greater than ourselves. We agree that we have hurt people whom God loves (ourselves and others) and that this is not okay.

to ourselves

Am I of two minds about my actions? If I’m holding on to justification, then this whole thing is not going to work. If I’m still arguing with myself over whether it was really wrong,  then perhaps I had better just stop and sort that out before I try and go any further. Time to go back to Step 4, I think.

to another human being

Confessing to a real person is hard. Really hard. Every time I have confessed publicly to something it has taught me precisely how… unwilling… I am.

It reveals how much I often don’t face in private confession:  fear, shame, willingness to accept consequences…

When I’m facing another person, these things come out for battle. I can’t mask the badness of the sin. The other isn’t stupid, and they’re not under the influence of my rationalization or justification. They know exactly how bad the thing I did was! I can’t trivialize it or sweep it under the carpet.

Not co-incidentally, this is what James prescribed.

Is any one of you sick? He should call the elders of the church to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise him up. And if he has sinned, he will be forgiven. Therefore, confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. — James 5:14-16a (NIV)

the exact nature

Trust me, I know about weasel words. They are the white lies, the vague, nonspecific terms I pull out when I want to hide the distasteful nature of something. Does this sound familiar?

“My actions were inappropriate, I am sorry for the hurt I may have caused.”

Here we have the classic Public Relations confession of someone who is being forced to apologize over something for which they are not actually sorry.

It’s a false confession. True confession means coming to terms with the exact, precise details of what we have done and why it was wrong. (If we were following the steps correctly, we have already done this as part of our searching inventory).

We can’t agree with God about something if we don’t know what we feel about it.
We can’t know what we feel about something unless we reflect on it.
We can’t reflect on the truth of our sin without feeling icky and convicted because sin is icky and convicting.

What the phrase exact nature demands is that we reflect, because in order to give a sin a name, in order to know the exact nature of something, we must reflect on it.

The language used enforces true confession.

When I hide in false confession, I rob myself. I rob myself of real confession, real release. It is worse than not confessing at all, because I believe I have dealt with something when I really have not – it will surely exact a later price.

comments: 0 » tags: , , , , ,

The 12 Steps – Step 4 – Inventory

March 25, 2011 under lenten, thehumancondition, theology

In this series of posts, I’m reflecting on the 12 steps of Alcoholics Anonymous.

They form a remarkably practical, powerful presentation of the Christian Gospel which is gloriously free from Church language and culture. They are simple to understand, difficult to follow and they hold a massive treasure. The greatest testimony to their worth is that they have proven themselves in the lives of many.

As previously said, we approach this step with the expectation that it will reveal to us the mind and the desire of God. God wants us to do these things.

Step 4

“Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves.”

Here’s a fascinating question:

Why should a moral inventory have anything to do with trying to stop drinking? How is it relevant if I told a lie? Stole? Committed adultery? These are bad things, yes… But what is the relevance?

Why a moral inventory? Why not a scientific inventory and analysis of behavior patterns? Isn’t that a quicker path to sobriety?

According to the steps, well… no. The step makes no attempt to say why not. What the step does make is the offer -”Believe and be healed.” We don’t have to understand. We do have to believe.

This step presents a few simple worldview claims:

  • There is such a thing as morality
  • We have the ability to render moral judgement.
  • We are capable of self knowledge and self reflection.

And, of course, the big one:

Our moral state is directly relevant to the badness in which we are now caught.

The claim in this step is we have moral issues which, if ignored, will leave us mired in the badness we presently suffer. It’s a massive claim. As far back as step one this claim was lurking – the powerlessness we suffer is a moral weakness.

searching

A searching inventory means we actually intend to find things. It means we want to be as thorough and complete as we may be, because we recognize that the purpose of the inventory is to find things.

This step is so difficult because in order to take it, we have to want to find things that we don’t want to find. Honest searching will only come from the decision we made to give our lives and wills over to God. Because right now, in the moment of searching, our wills are screaming at us, “No! NO! NO!”

If we never honestly made that decision, this step will fail.

fearless

Fear limits our searching. To really search, we must go beyond fear – fear of what others will think, fear of what God will think, fear of what we ourselves will think.

We are naturally afraid of the wrong things we have done, because… If we admit their wrongness, what is the consequence? How can they be dealt with?

It’s interesting that this step follows after step 3 – after giving up will and life to God.

Dealing with our wrongs, then, is out of our hands. We must abandon questions of consequence before the inventory, because we have already given over our very lives.  If we attempt to take inventory with consequence and fear handing over our heads, we will never get very far.

We must surrender first, come what may.

Surrendering is mandatory – there is no “good enough” threshold of wrongdoing under which we do not need to surrender. There is no “too wicked” threshold over which God will refuse us.

Morality as described by the steps is not a game of “How good do I need to be?” or “How good can I get away with?”

The issue in question is truth. What is the truth of our lives? What does honest self reflection tell us that we are doing wrong?

comments: 0 » tags: , , ,
« Previous