Examples of Evil: Forseen and Unforseen
Unlike sin, evil is alarming. It is alarming because it emerges unexpectedly in unanticipated ways and from unforeseen people. The post I present is a paper representing a potential part of a sermon. The practitioners of evil range from those guilty of genocide in Rwanda and the world community allowing the genocide to happen, to Pontius Pilate allowing the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, to Martin Luther, the primary initiator of the Protestant Reformation of the 16th century. Evidently, evil knows no boundaries.
—
In 1994, the world community experienced the horrors associated with genocide. Over a span of one hundred days, the Hutus slaughtered a minimum of 500,000 Tutsis and Hutu political moderates, sympathizers, and suspects in Rwanda, with estimates as high as one million; if the later estimate is correct, the Hutus murdered 20% of the total Rwandan population.[1] In response to this horror, the developed nations of the world - including the United States - sat by in silence. Why this response? General Romeo Dallaire was commander of the United Nations forces sent to Rwanda in 1993 to keep the peace with few troops and minimal resources.[2] His insights concerning the genocide are revealing. The United Nations refused to intervene because of fear of casualties to their own troops. In a Machiavellian fashion, the powerful nations viewed Rwanda - having “no strategic value or resources”[3] - as politically and economically not worth saving. As Christians, how did we allow this tragedy to occur?
The answer seems to originate in defining our “neighbors.” In response to a lawyer, Jesus tells the parable of the “Good Samaritan” (Luke 10:29-37).[4] In this parable, a man traveling, from Jerusalem to Jericho, falls victim to bandits, beaten, and left for dead. The religiously connected people pass the beaten man; that is, the priest responsible for administering God’s laws as well as the Levite responsible for upholding God’s laws both pass by the beaten man. However, the Samaritan - a man belonging to a people rejected by the Judeans[5] — feels compassion for the man, tends to his wounds, puts him up in an inn, and pays the innkeeper to look after the man using his own money. The answer to the lawyer’s question becomes obvious; the “real” neighbor to the beaten and penniless man was the man that helped him. Altruistic action not religious doctrine or practices were important to Jesus.
Unfortunately, Christians throughout history failed to take Jesus’ parable to heart. One of the most “famous” Christians failing to be the Good Samaritan was Martin Luther, arguably the igniter of the Great Reformation of the sixteenth century. In 1524, a rebellion involving German peasants erupted. The rebellion originated out of dire economic circumstances. Because of a declining population due to disease and hunger, landlords extorted even higher taxes - among other harsh measures - on peasants to make up for lost revenue.[6] As such, a poor population became poorer and more desperate. The peasants tied religion to their economic demands in creating their “Twelve Articles; that is, the peasants based their claims on scripture.”[7] Justo Gonzalez, a Christian historian, allows that Luther initially attempted to broker peace with the German princes. “When he first read the Twelve Articles, he addressed the German princes, telling them that was demanded in them was just, for the peasants were sorely oppressed.”[8] Yet, when the peasants rebel, Luther’s sympathy turns to rage. James Kittelson, a Reformation scholar, notes that in Luther’s writing of Against the Murderous and Thieving Hordes of Peasants, Luther urges the German princes to kill the peasants while informing them of the evils of rebellion.[9] Luther’s refusal to stand with the peasants - especially given his influence with the German princes - costs thousands of peasants their lives. According to Gonzalez, “more than 100,000 peasants were killed.”[10] How do we as Christians break our recycling of indifference and scorn concerning politically and economically oppressed populations so as to prevent future tragedy?
Christians expand their boundaries, including those who differ from them both politically and religiously. Jesus, himself, was victim of a political figure making a “safe” choice. Pontius Pilate, the Prefect of Judaea,[11] had no desire to convict Jesus, especially given the lack of evidence against him (Luke 23:14-23; John 18:38). Yet, Pilate refused to take a stand against injustice; the “practicalities” associated with a potential riot influenced his actions (Mark 15:15; Matt 27:24). Jesus Christ, then, is the example. Matthew 25:31-46 chronicles Jesus’ role in the final judgment. In welcoming those on his right hand, Jesus proclaimed, “For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you made me welcome, lacking clothes and you clothed me, sick and you visited me, in prison and you came to see me” (Matt 25:35-37). Christians must see Jesus in people of divergent faiths, creeds, colors, incomes, and sexual orientations. Actions for the benefit of others outweighs any value assessed using political and social measures.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Africa Program. “The International Response to the Rwandan Genocide: A Failure of Humanity.” Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. Online: http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?event_id=68205&fuseaction=topics.event_summary&topic_id=1417 (accessed 19 Apr 2009).
Frontline. “Interview: General Romeo Dallaire.” Frontline: Ghosts of Rwanda. Online: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/ghosts/interviews/dallaire.html (accessed 19 Apr 2009).
Gonzalez, Justo L. The Story of Christianity, Volume 2: The Reformation to the Present Day. New York: HarperCollins, 1985.
Kittelson, James M. Luther the Reformer: The Story of the Man and His Career. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003.
Wikipedia. “Pontius Pilate.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Online: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontius_Pilate (accessed 19 Apr 2009).
Wikipedia. “Rwandan Genocide.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Online: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_Genocide (accessed 19 Apr 2009).
Wikipedia. “Samaritan.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Online: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samaritan#Rejection_by_Judeans (accessed 19 Apr 2009).
[1] Wikipedia, “Rwandan Genocide,” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, online: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_Genocide (accessed 19 Apr 2009).
[2] Frontline, “Interview: General Romeo Dallaire,” Frontline: Ghosts of Rwanda, online: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/ghosts/interviews/dallaire.html (accessed 19 Apr 2009).
[3] Africa Program, “The International Response to the Rwandan Genocide: A Failure of Humanity,” Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, online: http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?event_id=68205&fuseaction=topics.event_summary&topic_id=1417 (accessed 19 Apr 2009).
[4] All scripture citations are from The New Jerusalem Bible unless otherwise noted.
[5] Wikipedia, “Samaritan,” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, online: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samaritan#Rejection_by_Judeans (accessed 19 Apr 2009).
[6] James M. Kittelson, Luther the Reformer: The Story of the Man and His Career (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003), 190.
[7] Justo L. Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity, Volume 2: The Reformation to the Present Day (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1985), 41.
[8] Ibid., 41.
[9] Kittelson, 191.
[10] Gonzalez, 42.
[11] Wikipedia, “Pontius Pilate,” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, online: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontius_Pilate (accessed 19 Apr 2009).
Sin Versus Evil
Sin and evil arguably remain the most complex aspects of theology to flesh out. In my opinion, clergy use the two interchangeably, which I believe is a mistake. In a theology of the divine spark, I attempt to differentiate sin from evil. This differentiation results from a basic premise: all people are sinful whereas a subset designate as “evil.” Sinfulness equivocates to the human condition and all its inherent physiological and psychological survival needs. When these needs are not met, human beings suffer the culmination of their limitations or sinfulness; they die. In a previous posting, I argue that Jesus Christ inherited this sinfulness because he was a human being. The ultimate grace of God and gift of Jesus Christ was the resurrection, a transcending of the ultimate human sin — death — and realization and transformation of life. Conversely, Evil is a turning away from God; a choice if you will. This view is consonant with Arminianism, in some respects. Human beings can reject God’s grace. Just watch and listen to Bill Maher on HBO. Salvation also can be lost; that is, human beings must pursue God as God pursues them. This reciprocity, in my opinion, is required to establish a requisite relationship with God. For example, in Matthew 7, Jesus says:
21“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ 23Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers (Matthew 7:21-23)!”
In previous postings, I write a polemic concerning the dangers of the “saved” litmus test. Believing to be “saved” equivocates to being part of an “elect,” those individuals whose salvation is guaranteed. Why is this relevant? More “evil” has been done by those who consider themselves to be “elect.” Currently, those elect promoting legal oppression and/or physical violence against Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) individuals advocate bigotry. Is bigotry God’s will? No. Other examples include selective ignorance of issues adversely affecting humankind. The American public’s indifference to the situation in Rwanda, arguably, enables the effective genocide of a major proportion of its people.
Sin
In previous postings, I conceptualize “sin” as limitation; that is, human qualities that prevent us from being God or even “god-like.” What are these qualities? Studying Maslow’s “Hierarchy of Needs” sheds light on this issue. Viewing the image below reveals that human beings require sets of needs for physiological and psychological survival, ultimately arriving at “self actualization.” Unfortunately, few individuals ever attain a self-actualized state, except in brief moments.
The conceptualization of “sin” as “limitation” resolves a few difficult theological issues. There is no hierarchy of sin. All human beings inherently possess these limitations, all progress through these stages. Moreover, it views sin contextually. Much — if not most — human behavior results from a given level of needs not being met. Similarly, Lawrence Kohlberg posited stages of moral development based on person’s level of cognitive development, borrowing — to some degree — from Jean Piaget. To illustrate this development, Kohlberg posed the “Heinz Dilemma.” The higher the level of cognitive development, the more sophisticated the resolutions generated. Both of these conceptualizations — applied to the question of sin — imply that it is a limitation, both physiologically and psychologically. In context, sin becomes behavior exercised on the basis of a relative lack of physiological or cognitive resources. As such, sin requires a human context to render it as a meaningful theological concept.
Evil
Evil, also, must be considered in context. For me, evil represents a purposeful, turning away from God. The phrase “turning away” emphasizes “choice”; that is, I believe that evil emanates from a human choice to turn away from God. Evil, as such, is the responsibility of humans. It is one result of God’s gift of “choice” to human beings. The problem becomes, “what is turning away?” Purposeful implies a state of knowledge, acknowledging this state, then rejecting it, knowing the consequences of such rejection. Identifying the Adolf Hitler’s of the world is easy. The uncovering of the wolves in sheep’s clothing is difficult. The people who blithely ignore genocide, the companies who promote themselves as stores for working people while economically oppressing their employees, and the insurance companies refusing to cover individuals based on their sexual orientation leaving them with little or no “safety net” are some concrete examples of these wolves. We should all be alarmed. For the essence or potential for evil is within each of us. Evil, unlike sin that is a physiological and psychological given, resembles a bell curve with rarities of no evil to much evil representing the tails and most people expressing or being guilty of some evil. This is why pursuing God is a necessity; that is, we need to pursue God, constantly. As Matthew 7:21-23 notes, for Jesus to know us, God’s will must be done. Of course, this is not easy. What is God’s will? That is exactly why pursuing God, contemplating God, meditating about God, through understanding ourselves and others is requisite. It is a journey not a light switch. How does a pursuit of God initiate?
Currently, I am reading Barbara Bradley Hagerty’s, Fingerprints of God to examine the possibilities she describes. Some of the book’s content seems to suggest certain people receive certain experiences. Yet, it seems to be more related to being able to see, a view I espoused in an earlier posting. What is fascinating about this book is that it proposes transformation; a reciprocal event that changes a person on a “cellular” level. Moreover, this transformation is not easy, causing the loss of old jobs, relationships, etc., in pursuit of God. I believe what is essentially lost is the veneer of meaninglessness in lieu of the meaningfulness of God. We shall see.
Delineating “sin” from “evil”
My apologies for not posting for a few months. Seminary in addition to counseling classes keep me busy. However, the gap between posts allowed me to think about my views on sin and evil. For some time, I wrestled with popular notions of Satan and the housing of Satan — hell — and came to the conclusion that neither exist. I promise to develop my conclusion in later posts. Suffice it to say, my dismissal of these two concepts has much to do with my view of human beings as “accountable”; that is, having responsibility. Along with that responsibility comes the freedom to choose. As such, the “choice” involves “pursuing” God versus “not pursuing” God. The choice of pursuit explains Jesus noting that while some obey the law (e.g., Torah), Jesus claims “not to know them” (Luke 13:22-27). Past posts cover the concept of “pursuing” God and its necessity. They will be revisited in later posts.
A necessary starting point, however, before discussing the plausibility of Satan and the existence of Hell is the distinction between sin and evil. An obvious assumption is that evil is more problematic than sin. I posit in earlier posts that everyone is inherently sinful, viewing “sin” as limitation rather than transgression. The obvious problem with sin as transgression is the untenability of a “hierarchy of sin.” Google “hierarchy of sin” and you find examples of bloggers wrestling with this issue. A more plausible conceptualization is that of sin as “limitation.” Humans inherently are limited, not equal to God. Humans require food, water, oxygen, sex, safety, stimulating environments — the list is endless — to survive and thrive. We can debate the list; however, what is not debatable is the fact that human beings require elements that — if not found — they die physically or existentially (e.g., removal of meaning; see Revolutionary Road for a movie example). Because of these needs, humans inherently are sinful. The logic is thus: the transgressions identified as “sinful” actually originate from human limitation. If I thirst as a human being long enough, I will be compromised morally to survive. Conversely, Jesus in John 19:28 — “I thirst” — acknowledging his human limitation, does not succumb to it by using his divine power. Maslow captures this concept in his hierarchy of needs, noting how basic human needs for survival outweigh any higher intellectual, social, or ethical needs.
Evil demarcates from sin in terms of prevalence as well as magnitude. Not everyone or everything is evil. Unlike traditional gnostics, I believe that God’s creation is amazing and wonderful (vs. Mitigated Gnosticism). Eschewing objects or material as evil is a start. Put simply, people with piercings, tattoos, scanty clothing, certain food tastes, etc., are not evil. This sounds mundane but groups exist that categorize evil, using the simplest terms and the most convenient of definitions. That is, such groups use terms and definitions to categorize people, marginalizing them in the process. The categories point more to the “sin” or limitation inherent in the “Vice Principal Vernons” of the world than the people being categorized. Remember, the need to categorize originates from a human survival mechanism; as such, it is a sin inherent in our very being. Using the sin as limitation argument generalizes nicely to human thoughts and actions as well.
Coming Next —> What is Evil?
While you are waiting, check out some tunes from Stereogum.com
you should see the stereogum.com mp3 player here if you have flash
The Journey to God: The Story of Augustine
The other sermonette written for Church History dealt with the arduous journey experienced by St. Augustine. St. Augustine did not merely succumb to a litmus test or checklist conversion to Christianity. Instead — like many Christians — explored various philosophies and theologies. As such, his pursuit of God enriches previous blogposts that discuss the pursuit of and journey to God.
–
Individual experiences associated with converting to Christianity comprise a vast mosaic, a paradigmatic shift of spirituality intertwined with evolving environmental circumstances. Logically, the paths to embracing Christianity arguably are diverse; like snowflakes, no conversion paths exactly match each other either in style or in duration. Throughout history, efforts at converting non-Christians focused on obtaining simple affirmations of faith. Such affirmations often focused on political agendas promoting unity. Arguably, the greatest emperor in the history of the Rome Empire, Constantine placed a high importance on the unity of the church that he “hoped would become the ‘cement of the Empire.’ Thus, the state soon began to use its power to force theological agreement on Christians.”[1] Constantine’s efforts at theologically unifying the church eventuated in his calling of the first ecumenical council at Nicea in 325 ce; at this council, bishops from the East and from the West refined Christian theology, removing “heretical” elements and forging a unifying statement - the Apostles’ Creed - regarding the relationship between God and Jesus Christ.[2] Today, such simple affirmations of faith based on a somewhat simplified and agreed upon theology of Christianity call into question not only the theology but the “converted” person as well. Individual understanding of Christianity may suffer also.
The embracing of Christianity constitutes a long tortuous path. Jesus told his disciples, “If anyone wants to be a follower of mine, let him renounce himself and take up his cross and follow me” (Matt 16:24; Mark 8:34).[3] The simple declaration made by Jesus indicates a process (i.e., journey) versus a simple outcome (i.e., affirming faith). To follow Jesus, individuals first must renounce themselves, giving up possessions, wealth, power and any other compelling distractions. Secondly, individuals must prepare to suffer, made explicit by Jesus’ reference to the cross. Jesus uses the cross - a powerful metaphor for suffering during the Roman Empire - to make explicit the heavy costs associated with discipleship. Lastly, following Jesus requires active efforts not just passive affirmations of faith on the part of Christians.
One of the most influential theologians in the history of Christianity undertook a tortuous journey to his faith. Justo Gonzalez - a Christian Historian - chronicles Augustine’s theological and spiritual journey to Christianity.[4] His parents sent him to Carthage to study rhetoric in preparation for a future career in law or public service. Unfortunately, Augustine sought out “the many pleasures that the city offered. Soon he had a concubine who bore him a child.”[5] After reading Cicero, Augustine discovered the need to seek truth as well as style; he combined his study of rhetoric with that of philosophy.
Augustine did not immediately embrace Christianity. His study of rhetoric influenced his distaste for the crude writing and often violent content found in the stories of the Bible. Augustine’s search for truth started with a philosophy originated in Persia by Mani in the third century ce. Augustine found Manicheism initially compelling because “part of its propaganda consisted in ridiculing the teachings of Christianity, and particularly the Bible, whose materialism and primitive language it mocked.”[6] Manicheism also seemed to address Augustine’s questions concerning the origin of evil. All human beings contain two elements: light and darkness. Evil consisted of mingling the two elements whereas salvation required separating the two elements. Conversely, referencing Christianity to answer the issue of evil presented a dilemma. “If God was supreme and pure goodness, evil could not be a divine creation. And if, on the other hand, all things were created by the divine, God could not be as good and wise as . . . the church claimed.”[7] Although compelling, Augustine never fully converted to Manicheism; the Manichean teachers never completely resolved all of Augustine’s doubts about the religion.
After moving to Milan for a teaching position, Augustine continued his search regarding the question of evil embracing a philosophy called Neoplatonism. For Neoplatonists, evil, “though real, is not a ‘thing,’ but rather a direction away from the goodness of the One,”[8] the source of all being. Emanations or “realities” circled the ineffable One, whereby the goal for Neoplatonists was to inhabit an emanation close to the One. According to Gonzalez, “realities that are closer to the One are superior, and those that are more removed from it are inferior.”[9] As such, Neoplatonism allowed for both a divine source of creation as well as the existence of evil, effectively extinguishing Augustine’s doubts concerning the existence of both God and evil delineated in Christianity.
Influenced by his study of rhetoric, Augustine still had doubts about Christianity. “How can one claim that the Bible, with its crude language and its stories of violence and falsehood, is the Word of God?”[10] The answer to his question came in the form of Ambrose, the bishop of Milan. Augustine listened to Ambrose’s sermons and found that “Ambrose interpreted allegorically many of the passages that had created difficulties for Augustine.”[11] Allegorical interpretation fit Augustine’s standards of rhetoric. Specifically, allegorical interpretation is an “approach which assigns a higher-than-literal interpretation to the contents of a text.”[12] Intellectually, at least, Augustine’s journey to fully embracing Christianity ended.
Augustine’s journey was not complete, however. According to Gonzalez, “Augustine was convinced that, were he to become Christian, he must give up his career in rhetoric, as well as his ambitions and every physical pleasure. It was precisely this last requirement that seemed most difficult.”[13] Augustine’s struggle coincides with the parable of the sower in the book of Luke. In explaining the parable to his disciples, Jesus told of the seed - representing the word of God - that fell into the thorns, “this is people who have heard, but as they go on their way they are choked by the worries and riches and pleasures of life and never produce any crops” (Luke 8:14). Augustine finally relinquished his teaching post and his need for physical pleasures, planning to live a life of a monk in North Africa.
The long and torturous journey seems necessary for embracing Christianity. Following Jesus Christ is not merely an affirmation of his existence but a commitment of actively pursuing a new way of life. Too often, Christians “slot” their relationship with God into a roughly sixty minute experience, held once a week. The experience requires no social upheaval of their lifestyles; indeed, they freely engage in various forms of consumerism, ever accumulating and consuming. Although comprising less than 5% of the world’s population, Americans consume roughly one fourth of the world’s energy resources. Individually, Americans - on the average - consume six times more than the world average.[14] Even faced with such condemning evidence, we refuse to change, clinging - as did Augustine initially - to our lives of pleasure and comfort. Many Americans feel they deserve to consume more of the world’s resources, viewing themselves as better benefactors and contributors to the world than more developing countries.[15] Embracing a consumptive lifestyle dooms many Americans to being “choked off” from the word of God.
Accepting a uniform but expedient Christianity also prevents an understanding of the theology fueling it. Augustine learned much from his struggles, chronicling them in Confessions, “a spiritual biography, addressed in prayer to God, which tells how God led him to faith through a long and painful pilgrimage.”[16] Such a pilgrimage led Augustine to insights regarding Christian theology leading to formulations of “free will” and “just war” that permeate Christian theology to this day. Lacking in such struggles, Americans fail to understand the plight of their world neighbors. Instead, the ability to assimilate into Christianity coupled with fairly luxurious lifestyles - as compared to the developing world - chokes off American Christians from the word of God.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Energy Kid’s Page. “Energy Efficiency.” Energy Information Administration. Online: http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/energyfacts/saving/efficiency/savingenergy.html. (accessed 18 Nov 2008).
Gonzalez, Justo L. The Story of Christianity, Volume I: The Early Church to the Dawn of the Reformation. New York: HarperOne, 1984.
Planck, Bernie. “Americans Deserve to Consume More Resources.” Planck’s Constant. Online: http://plancksconstant.org/blog1/2008/05/americans_deserve_to_consume_more _resources.html. (accessed 18 Nov 2008).
[1] Justo L. Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity, Volume I: The Early Church to the Dawn of the Reformation (New York: HarperOne, 1984), 158.
[2] Ibid., 162-66.
[3] All scripture citations are from The New Jerusalem Bible unless otherwise noted.
[4] Gonzalez, 208-212.
[5] Ibid., 208.
[6] Ibid., 210.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid., 211.
[9] Ibid., 210.
[10] Ibid., 211.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Wikipedia, “Allegorical Interpretation,” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, online: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegorical_interpretation (accessed 17 Nov 2008).
[13] Gonzalez, 211.
[14] Energy Kid’s Page, “Energy Efficiency,” Energy Information Administration, online: http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/energyfacts/saving/efficiency/savingenergy.html (accessed 18 Nov 2008).
[15] Planck, Bernie, “Americans Deserve to Consume More Resources,” Planck’s Constant, online: http://plancksconstant.org/blog1/2008/05/americans_deserve_to_consume_more _resources.html (accessed 18 Nov 2008).
[16] Gonzalez, 215.
Social Reversal and St. Francis of Assisi
Every now and then assignments tackled in seminary contribute and strengthen the theology being fleshed out in this blog. The sermonette dealing with St. Francis of Assisi adds credence to my argument calling for the need for social reversal. As discussed throughout this blog, social reversal is requisite in beginning the pursuit of God.
—
Christians often assume that mere faith in God ensures salvation, believing a simple verbal confession of faith allows sinful “non-Christians” to be “saved.” One outcome of this belief is that effective evangelism requires Christians to convert non-Christians by having them affirm their belief in God and that God’s son Jesus Christ died for their sins. Often missing in these affirmations is an understanding of what a belief in God entails. A populist belief in God implies a process of salvation that is simple and relatively free of sacrifice. Yet, this is but one path for Christians to travel; ironically, this “common path” likely is a spiritually perilous one. Jesus clarifies the pathway to the kingdom of heaven as follows. “Enter by the narrow gate, since the road that leads to destruction is wide and spacious, and many take it; but it is a narrow gate and a hard road that leads to life, and only a few find it” (Matt 7:13).[1] What constitutes the narrow gate and the hard path that Christians should pursue?
Paul in his letter to Timothy maintains that the “love of money is the root of all evils, and there are some who, pursuing it, have wandered away from the faith and so given their souls any number of fatal wounds” (1 Tim 6:10). A major step for Christians toward the narrow gate and the hard path would be to disavow a love of money. The story of an influential monastic leader illustrates this approach. Following the crusades, the people of the Middle Ages experienced a significant economic change from Feudalism - an economic system emphasizing wealth in terms of land ownership - to a monetary economy. According to Christian historian Justo Gonzalez, one unfortunate consequence of a monetary economy is that it promotes “a growing chasm between rich and poor.”[2] Responding to the needs of the poor during this economic transition were the mendicants - meaning “those who live by begging.”[3] The mendicants were new monastic orders that took shape during this historical period assisting the poor and the sick during the shifting of the population caused by the growth of cities in Western Europe.
From this transformative period emerged a man named Giovanni who embraced poverty. Reputedly, his zeal for poverty ignited when Giovanni chased down a beggar and emptied out his pockets, giving the beggar the contents after completing a business deal for his father.[4] This incident completely changed Giovanni’s life. “He . . . gave to the poor all he had. If his parents gave him more, he immediately gave it away. Dressed in rags, he spent his time praising the beauty of poverty to any who would listen, or rebuilding an abandoned chapel, or enjoying the beauty and harmony of nature.”[5] Giovanni’s embracement of poverty angered his father who sought the services of the bishop. The bishop subsequently ruled that Giovanni give up his inheritance and Giovanni’s life of poverty began.[6]
Giovanni, known by his friends in Assisi as Francesco because of his love for the songs of the French troubadours,[7] coupled his zeal for poverty with preaching after hearing a reading of NT scripture. According to Gonzalez, Francesco or “Francis” responded to Jesus’ charge to his disciples telling them to proclaim the kingdom of God and cure the sick.[8] In Matt 10:7-10, Jesus commanded his disciples to accomplish these tasks by taking no gold, silver or copper, not even a spare tunic, footwear or a staff. Arguably, Jesus believed that the accumulation of wealth obstructs spreading the word of God. Francis emulated Jesus by visiting cities, seeking crowds, preaching the kingdom of God and helping the sick and the poor in Assisi. After gaining followers, Francis of Assisi successfully ventured to Rome seeking authorization from Pope Innocent III to found a new monastic order - the Friars Minor.[9] Central to the Franciscan order was the eschewing of wealth, preaching the word of God in humility.
People seeking to follow Jesus Christ confront the opposing paths of pursuing wealth and pursuing the kingdom of God throughout their lives. Jesus understood this human dilemma when answering a rich man wondering what he must do to possess eternal life. Jesus first told him to keep the commandments: “You shall not kill. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not steal. You shall not give false witness. Honor your mother and father. You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Matt 19:18-20). Interestingly, Jesus does not comment on the first commandment insisting on loving God only. Indeed, the true test for the rich man is to give up his love of wealth. The man insists he has kept all the commandments Jesus listed. Jesus then tells the rich man, “If you wish to be perfect, go and sell your possessions and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me” (Matt 19:21). The rich man faced with this choice, chooses his true love — wealth. Jesus teaches his disciples, “In truth I tell you, it is hard for someone rich to enter the kingdom of Heaven. Yes, I tell you again, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for someone rich to enter the kingdom of Heaven” (Matt 19:23-24). The message is clear. Comfort and wealth block and detour people from following the path of Jesus Christ, effectively blocking the pursuit of the kingdom of God.
In the United States, the income distribution skews towards the wealthy with the top 6% of the population earning roughly one-third of all income. Conversely, over 12% of citizens living in the United States live in poverty and almost 20% earn a family income of $19,000 or less.[10] The disparity of wealth in the United States punctuates the story of Francis of Assisi and the teachings of Jesus. Accumulation of wealth predominates, creating an American culture focused on consumerism; Americans prioritize accumulating wealth and possessions over helping and caring for the poor and needy. Grocery stores such as Publix offer its customers the ability to buy and donate bags of selected grocery items (e.g., fruit cocktail, hash) for distribution to the poor. Yet, many bags still remain and will remain, even after the holiday season. If each family purchased just one bag per month (one bag = $20 X twelve months = $240 per year), the poor in our neighborhoods might not experience hunger during or after the holidays.
Consumerism generalizes to Christian churches as well. American churches seem focused inward; their budgets oriented to creating bigger buildings or refurbishing older spaces to more ornate worship areas. A reversing or upheaval of Christian priorities seems evident. If all churches in the United States earmarked a small percentage of their budgets to feeding the poor, there would be no need for any governmental programs that typically are ineffectual in providing timely or lasting relief. The lifestyle of Francis of Assisi should inspire Christians to begin such a social reversal, to focus their spiritual lives as well as church goals to sacrificing individual and church desires to redistributing resources to fellow citizens - Christian and non-Christian - that are needy.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Gonzalez, Justo L. The Story of Christianity, Volume I: The Early Church to the Dawn of the Reformation. New York: HarperOne, 1984.
Wikipedia. “Francis of Assisi.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Online: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_of_Assisi. (accessed 15 Nov 2008).
Wikipedia. “Household Income in the United States.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Online: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States. (accessed 15 Nov 2008).
[1] All scripture citations are from The New Jerusalem Bible unless otherwise noted.
[2] Justo L. Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity, Volume I: The Early Church to the Dawn of the Reformation (New York: HarperOne, 1984), 302.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Wikipedia, “Francis of Assisi,” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, online: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_of_Assisi (accessed 15 Nov 2008).
[5] Gonzalez, 302.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Ibid., 303.
[10] Wikipedia, “Household Income in the United States,” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, online: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States (accessed 15 Nov 2008).
Questioning the Linearity of Time — Some Additional Thoughts
After talking to a friend about my views on the characteristics of time, I feel the need to add a some additional insights. Curiously, these insights occurred to me during a Church History class. Yet, they seem to add biblical credence to the idea of circular versus linear time. As noted before, I propose biblical scripture denotes time as circular based on verses found in Revelation (1:8; 22:6; 22:13). God is the “alpha” and “omega,” the beginning and the end of existance as symbolized by the first (alpha) and last (omega) letters of the Greek alphabet. If God is both beginning and end, then a linear view of time is fallacious; that is, viewing time as a line segment with God at the beginning point and God at the endpoint logically wrong. It implies two separate beings needed for two separate distinctions, a logical polytheism of sorts. Instead, connecting the two endpoints — beginning and ending of time — brings the points together into one divine being, God. Bringing the points together formulates a circle, hence time is circular not linear.
The passage of the seasons lends more credence to the circularity of time. The circle of God’s creation is born in the Spring, reaches full growth and potential in the Summer, declines in the Fall, and dies in the Winter. If viewing time using a linear model, then life as we know it ends in one set of four different phases. But the phases start again. After Winter with life seemingly ended, Spring comes again. The dead or hibernating creations of God come to life. The resurrection of Jesus Christ reinforces the model of circular time associated with God’s creation. Jesus seemingly dies but comes back to life. Using a linear model of time allows no hope for human beings, seemingly destined for the ultimate physical limitation of death. Fortunately, time is circular as human beings are “born again” after death.
Conceptualizing a Spiritual Communion with God
Why have we become “comfortably numb?” One compelling hypothesis posits the spiritual vacuum of the Christian worship of God. The emphasis on the cultural “external” enacts little if any understanding both cognively and spiritually of God. While reviewing the book Enduring Grace: Living Portraits of Seven Women Mystics – written by Carol Lee Flinders — an interesting and compelling communion between humans and God materialized through Flinders’ chronicles of women mystics. Below is an edited — for this blog — of a segment of my review. I encourage anyone to read this book and wrestle with its concepts.
___
Severing the connection between body and soul often required the women mystics to experience great suffering. Yet, Flinders discovers the women anticipated the suffering and even welcomed it. In interpreting Julian of Norwich’s writings, for example, she discovers that “whatever suffering you and I might be undergoing, even the sort that flows out of our own mistakes, is in a real sense analogous to Christ’s and is gradually uniting us with him. A magnificent picture emerges, one of creature and creator moving toward each other, kin in their suffering, immersed alike in their thirst for each other . . .“ (pp. 93-94). The thirst equates to a suffering or insatiable desire for union with God. Mechthild of Magdeburg fleshes out the “thirst,” employing evocative metaphors. Flinders notes, “She describes the longing for mystical union now as hunger, now as thirst, now as pain to be assuaged or a fever to be cooled, and of course as sexual yearning” (p. 54).
As such, the suffering experienced by the women mystics is not the product of physical, psychological or social deprivation, but the insatiable desire for their souls to unite with God. Suffering exists because the mystical union is unconsummated. Catherine of Genoa equates the suffering to the soul’s need for refinement. Flinders uses Dante’s depiction of souls in purgatory to clarify Catherine’s equation. “They may appear to be suffering terribly as they undergo what Dante called ‘the fire that refines,’ and in a real sense, Catherine acknowledges, they are suffering, but only because of the flaws in themselves that delay their full union with God” (p. 141). In the mystical context, then, suffering – by necessity – precedes communion, making understandable Jesus’ requirements made to his followers (Matt 16:24-25; Mark 8:34-35; Luke 9:23-24).
The necessary sufferings of the mystic women hold the key to the relevance of their experiences: their communion with God. According to Mechthild of Magdeburg, “The culmination of all religious life . . . is mystical union” (p. 58). The dynamics of the union runs counter to Constantinian Christianity that advocates a hierarchy of power from God down to human being. Mechthild conceptualizes “the relationship between human soul and God as being connective and dynamic” (p. 67) as well as one of “astonishing reciprocity” (p. 67). As such, the relationship connotes an egalitarian quality. Suffering makes the relationship possible through Jesus Christ.
In Dialogue, Flinders notes that Catherine of Siena’s “central metaphor is of Christ as the bridge: humanity at one end, divinity at the other, uniting at the center in the figure of Christ” (p. 123). Jesus Christ unites two entities of a “horizontal relationship” where power is not the issue. Consequently, the bridge metaphor provides humanity an opening for “free will” rendering gender irrelevant. Flinders acknowledges in her conclusion that “mystics of every tradition assure us that gender is absolutely irrelevant, for as we move toward the highest levels of spiritual awareness, we gradually ‘dis-identify’ ourselves from everything that normally constitutes identity – mind, body, intellect, ego” (p. 225). As such, a horizontal relationship provides a more viable metaphor than viewing the relationship between humanity and divine as “vertical,” with its emphasis on power and its potential to marginalize populations. Moreover, connecting the entities of humanity and divine with the bridge of Jesus Christ eventuates in mystics attaining a “unitive consciousness,” (p. 225). Unitive consciousness both emphasizes the “experience of a formless god, one who is not so much a being as a state of being” (pp. xxi-xxii) and one path to this state, Jesus Christ (p. xxii).
___
Flinders book describes the importance of the internal, captured through the writings of and documentation about seven women mystics. One reason why the conceptualization of a spiritual communion with God is so difficult for Christians historically to grasp is the influence of Constantine and the Roman Empire to institutionalize the church, using as unifying cement as one way of keeping the peace. Therefore, Constantine viewed theological agreement as mandatory, marginalizing and persecuting “heretical” views. Therefore, the emerging church emphasized the “external,” its institutionalization and resulting hierarchies; a development seemingly antithetical to realizing a communion with God.
Questioning the Linearity of Time
Orthodox Christianity conceptualizes time as linear — passed down from Judiasm — with the establishment of creation as the “starting” point and final redemption by God as the “end” point ; Christians anticipate eschatology in the form of the Parousia as the “end” point of the equation. Yet, the equation seems fallacious. Acknowledging God constitutes both a personal and ultimately an eschatological end point, God also is the starting point not God’s creation, that is the alpha and omega — the beginning and the end (Rev 22:13). This means that God both pervades time (or history) but also constitutes it’s nature or function.
Linear views of time attract those seeking prediction; that is, a predictive equation for salvation. It rests on the assumption that human beings possess the ability to predict the divine. For example, one such equation could be the following: X (individual faith) + Y (corporate faith) = eschatological realization of the Parousia.I In such an equation, faith is the key variable predictive of salvation, the more faith, the better eschatological result. As such, the argument for linear time rests on its predictive value. Throughout history, God is proposed to act through people culminating in a series of events pointing to an eschatological end of salvation. Unfortunately, the identification of the people and events (i.e., variables of faith) rests on the people themselves; the failure of early Christians to predict the Parousia following the death and ressurection of Jesus Christ ultimately led to the institutional development of the church (see Early Catholicism). The early Christians arguably possessed the best evidence — the teachings of Jesus Christ — to identify and predict the Parousia, yet they failed. The only predictable history is an individual’s salvation after death (Matt 12:38-41).
A circular conceptualization of time needs serious consideration because it more accurately represents both the meaninglessness of human perceptions of life and the mystery of God. Stanley J. Grenz notes that other religions — such as those worshipped by the Canaanites — held a cyclical understanding of time. This understanding alone perhaps persuaded the Hebrews to eschew time cyclicality for linearity, just to differentiate themselves from polytheistic religions of the Near East. Using an equation based on Rev 22:13, God being both the beginning and the ending points begs the formation of a circle not a line segment, especially given the view of monotheism. The line of history begins and ends with God.
A circular depiction — by itself — seems to put almost too much emphasis on God and not enough on man. Figuring into the circular functionality of time, however, is free will. No matter how free will is defined by various religions and the diversity of theologies within these religions, the concept implies choice. God refuses to mandate worship by human beings creating the first choice. That is, do you believe in God? If so, you move to a more nuanced fork in the road: does your belief in God drive your life? If it does, then your perceptions of the world — minimally — what you value, and how you behave — maximally — diverge significantly from the population.
Throughout these posts, I propose the need to “see,” that is an alternative point of view or reality that minimally involves a social reversal and maximumally proposes a communion with God, free of the obstacles associated with individual physicality (hunger, thirst), psychological requirements (need for affirmation) and socio-political desires (status, consumerism). Seeing, then, is a developmental process that is a path chosen by human beings. This path insists on the active pursuit of God, of knowing God often through trial-and-error, questioning, and introspection. This path cannot be traveled through passively, of believing that attending church and verbally acknowledging that God exists is enough. Too often, such passivity results in marginalizing diverse points of view because the emphasis is not on pursuing God but in agreeing on a doctrine or belief system. The motivation behind such doctrinal agreement is peace through uniformity.
The circularity of time, then represents a reality — viewed through the misshapen lens of human beings that color reality via the obstacles discussed above — rendered meaningless. This view does not imply that matter is inherently evil or the body is an inherently evil vessle to escape as advocated by traditional gnosticism. Rather it posits that humans value and believe in education, technology, political and economic institutions that are cultural manifestations. Institutional responses to given problems are a function of the cultural mileus to which they are embedded. Given the diversity of responses emanated through this equation, one constancy emerges: the same problems occur over and over again regardless of the millennium, century, decade, year, month or day of time measured. Problems fail to be solved and transcended through the auspices and perceptions of humans. Again, Ecclesiastes 3 outlines the cycles that life events and experiences occur; some are good and some are bad. The point is circularity of “human” reality; the contrived institutions fail to allow human beings to transcend individual and social problems. Peace and love, as such, is short-lived soon to be followed by yet another cycle of war and hate.
Accepting the reality of cultures, their institutions and the reoccurring cycle of problems eventuates in humans relegating the church as irrelevant in its effectiveness. Unfortunately, the church becomes one of the “meaningless” institutions, segmented and slotted — in time — to Sundays and special events (e.g., weddings, funerals), ultimately placed on the lower end of the cultural totem pole. Our culture is expedient and attention-deprived. The result is Christians — comfortable in the uniformity of their beliefs — fail to take the time, effort and — most importantly — the risks needed to pursue a journey necessary for seeing an alternative reality necessary for experiencing communion with God.
Instead, they are comfortably numb.
Clement of Alexandria
Classes in seminary started up and reading through Justo Gonzalez’s The Story of Christianity made me pause. On reading through a chapter on the apologists, Clement of Alexandria resonated with me and some of the philosophy posted on this blog. According to Gonzalez, Clement emphasized the relationship between faith and reasoning to pursuing “a quest for deeper truth.” Gonzalez outlines Clements views as follows:
There is a close relationship between faith and reason, for one cannot function without the other. Reason builds its arguments on first principles, which cannot be proven, but are accepted by faith. For the truly wise, faith is the first principle, the starting point, on which reason is to build. But Christians who are content with faith, and do not use reason to build upon it, are again like a child who is forever content with milk. (p. 73)
Clement’s philosophy dovetails nicely with this blog’s emphasis on pursuing God. Christians need to pursue God, to experience God’s love and grace through “seeing” truer realities. Otherwise, Christians remain “at risk” for spiritual stagnation, going through the motions of worship without seeking communion with God.
The Cosmic Game of Tag
In previous posts, I expound on the topic of humans pursuing God. Pursuing God requires spiritual transformation. This transformation allows humans to “see” alternative realities; that is, the journey from seeing a different perspective to ultimately absorbing God’s kingdom through all mediums presented by God. Why should humans want to engage in this pursuit? Ricky Fitts in American Beauty “sees” the mediums presented to him, actually using a video camera to document them so he doesn’t forget. He proclaims to Jane:
Sometimes there’s so much beauty in the world I feel like I can’t take it… and my heart is going to cave in.
Lester Burnham — after he dies — “sees” the enormity of the beauty that Ricky Fitts “sees.” This concept is so critical to the film that it is reproduced by Lester and he adds the following at the end of American Beauty:
I guess I could be pretty pissed off about what happened to me… but it’s hard to stay mad, when there’s so much beauty in the world. Sometimes I feel like I’m seeing it all at once, and it’s too much, my heart fills up like a balloon that’s about to burst…and then I remember to relax, and stop trying to hold on to it, and then it flows through me like rain and I can’t feel anything but gratitude for every single moment of my stupid little life… You have no idea what I’m talking about, I’m sure. But don’t worry…
The question then becomes: Why does God pursue human beings? The answer lies in God’s role as “creator.” One of the greatest satisfactions human beings experience is creating, whether it be an art project, do-it-yourself remodeling of a home, or birthing a child. Common to all creations is the desire to protect it, demonstrating pride in the creation and even enhancing it. Logically, God pursues human beings because he created them. Human beings possess the ability to choose their paths - pursuing God, eschewing God or randomly drifting. Because God created human beings, God pursues them regardless of the paths chosen. In keeping with the divine spark inherent in all forms of God’s creations, God pursues human beings across all genders, sexual orientations, and religious preferences. That is, God does not pursue Christians to the exclusion of Muslims nor does God pursue heterosexuals to the exclusion of homosexuals. God just pursues, and will keep pursuing.
This is the “game” of cosmic “tag.” The continuous pursuit of God and of God toward human beings culminates in the explosion of “seeing,” of experiencing beauty often clouded and distorted and even hidden by the meaningless pursuits of human beings contrived by the current culture. The emerging reality are the lies and delusion suffered but overcome by Lester Burnham. A key question emerging from American Beauty is this: to what extent do you employ strategies to survive a reality you know is meaningless? Ricky Fitts dealt drugs to generate money so that he could document beauty. In a meaningless reality, what is morality?