Louis Gabriel Ambroise de Bonald.

Never heard of him until today. Apparently a highly conservative French counter-revolutionary. Aka, not in vogue today.

His significant contribution to the world of ideas is primarily in “a universal triadic logic of faits sociales which are ‘general’, ‘external’ and ‘visible.’ The universal ratio pouvoir/ministre/suject is found expressed as I/you/he, father/mother/child, sovereign/executive/subject and God/priest/faithful (Milbank, 56: ISBN: 978-1405136846).”

At modern first-read, this is preposterous. There are many more options available by which society can structure itself. Of course there are. This is one man’s motif applied in all things. A singular perspective, against and of which the late-Modern perspectivalism desires more. But let’s say there’s something to his view, instead of just reacting against it. Let’s take a non-Catholic, “Biblical” approach to this triad.

First, there are Christian New-Testament makes much more frequent claim to Jesus being our priest, and still claims that “the faithful” are ourselves all priests, as well as children of God, and furthermore representatives of God and clearly executives on this planet. That leaves us with the triad initially replaced with God/Jesus/faithful into God/Jesus::faithful. Now what of the other triads? The sovereign is never to be the head of power alone; the master is the direct, executing servant (not the indirect, apersonal, theoretical, rationally justified “public servant”). Second, in terms of family, we are left with either the ‘mother’ being pushed down into child-level, or raised up into father-level. Guess what? Jesus came down to us not to keep us as children, and certainly not just to diminish God, but to raise our own pouvoir: fathers and mothers are categorically equal. This is obvious.

Regressing for a moment, we can say that de Bonald’s triad is a rather standard-religious approach, as well as a standard-secular approach. Yes, secularism is likely more neo-religious than it would like to be. Thereby, were we to take this conservative Catholic, as well as standard-secular sociology as final in de Bonald, Christ comes and radically alters the power-structures in society, and thereby creating a wholly other and new sociology. Is it any wonder why there are Christian statements of co-equality of slaves, masters, husbands, wives, etc. This is not simply a new edition of the old; something new entirely, worthy of study, lived-ness and enjoyment. Altogether curious.

Aside:
It is not enough to say that conservatism & liberalism are the same, and thereby positivism is “the way” (As my idealistic self is prone to do!). Christian theology comes with specific content and form which finds similarity in all of them. One can always conform Christianity into any given smaller idealism, but that takes the fun out of theology.

Ahh the “New Media makes you dumb” debate. The WSJ has it going, and Slashdot picked it up.

My spin agrees with both sides, in the context of actor-responsibility/meaningless-drone. That itself is a rough divide for humanity; I mean, how many of us are *fully* determined in our thought patterns? Most of us are in small ways, but not in all ways. Further, we are only as determined by what is available to us. If no one is ever forced to turn off the TV, read a book, or read a full webpage, they never will. Humanity is *that* fickle. We’ll live in the present, assuming the past isn’t consequential. The Internet has only “given the people what they want” in that regard.  To this end, Shirky did a wonderful job with the history of new media; theories are only good if they hold water across time & place.

But this consistently distracted state is in some ways my own life. I have trouble filtering out background conversations when in a restaurant, among other examples. I’m sure it’s giving rise to affective disorders (let’s not get beyond simple parole: dis-order = out of order). How can someone know what to love if there is no order or priority to in and out-flow of info, people, experience, etc.

The spiritual consequences are huge then. Jesus’ 2 commands of love God & fellow-man could be well-undermined by this novelty. That’s why I’m agreeing with a friend’s recent Facebook status: “Discipline is remembering what you love.” Discipline isn’t about saying “no,” so much as remembering, and remembering & reflecting is being killed off.

Reflection is a time-intensive activity, one which now-now-now-or-you’ll-miss-it-or-get-too-far-behind media won’t allow for, and as noted, is required:

“The researchers were surprised by the results. They had expected that the intensive multitaskers would have gained some unique mental advantages from all their on-screen juggling. But that wasn’t the case. In fact, the heavy multitaskers weren’t even good at multitasking. They were considerably less adept at switching between tasks than the more infrequent multitaskers. “Everything distracts them,” observed Clifford Nass, the professor who heads the Stanford lab.” — Nicholas Carr

This is exactly what the other side of the debate agrees with as well:

“Reading is an unnatural act; we are no more evolved to read books than we are to use computers.”–Clay Shirky

But what I like about Clay’s statement is the next line: “Literate societies become literate by investing extraordinary resources, every year, training children to read.” Resources maybe anything from mothers to educators, from $ for private tutoring to the publishing industry.. but it is always about time. My own time reading is only worth it if I spend the time to stop every other paragraph or so. Ideas need to sink in for any foundation to be placed. Who wants a skyscraper built on unset, wet concrete? That’s the best analogy I can give for what the Internet is doing: providing shortcuts for our memory, and keeping us from remembering anything. Even the act of scrolling a webpage is vague. Turning a page is much more definitive. I can’t glance-back as easily as I can scroll back & forth. (Ok, maybe not the best example..)

I suppose what this means for future information-design is clearspace. Data can also be held better when it is interacted with. Static graphs are visualization of too many numbers; interaction/overlays, compare-contrast is a beginning for too many graphs. Fickle “daily info-graphics” sent to my inbox or RSS reader only clog my mind, unless they spark interest  for further research (assuming I know where & how to research it!). I’d much rather have the data in contrast with something else, both of which are in connection with present values and personal states of knowledge. This way graphics could be delivered to my inbox for me, which overlap/redundant, and over-time help me learn and meat specified goals.

And finally for a sociological perspective. This little idea about remembering can be expanded further to include any binary-division, even gender-roles. While there’s a pressure from amongst egalitarians to “be equal” between/across genders, there is also a consequence of each gender doing everything, overburdening itself with too much. But that is still no “win” for anyone who would espouse a fascist (Modernist) sociology, where each person must fit the role assigned 100%. (I’m looking at you SB-preachers!)

Update: NYT picked this up too with their own spin that sounds like a good middle ground/awareness campaign.

Warning, to those disinterested in the finer points of “Biblical Manhood & Womanhood”, 1 Corinithians 11, or hermeneutics in general, you may wish to skip to the last 2 paragraphs.

Aaaand, here’s yet another blog-post, this time, on church today.
I’m touchy on many topics about which I’ve heard only one side. Not that I’m against everything being said from that one side.  And I say I’m always attempting to hear the various things the audience could be hearing, through playing with each term through it’s domain.

Generically, the first concern I always have is with logical fallacies (from false-analogies to straw-men). The second (if not actually the first!) is context. Sadly, I tend to perceive people to be disinterested in either of these valuable items. A third concern is a new one for me, one which I’m trying to understand: content, form & function. The fourth concern is still only 3 weeks old: conflation of multiple-value-scales. This last one may of course be the same as ignoring contexts.

All this to say, when I come to a confusing or often misrepresented passage or idea, it’s important to look at whether the issue being discussed is in the arena of all of life (natural), personal/relational life, social-religious life (church), or spiritual (relationship to God). In particular to 1 Corinthians 11, these 4 contexts are “praying and prophesying” (in church), “in the Lord” (spiritual relationship), “woman” (nature, applying to all), “wife” (personal relationship). Notice a context which is missing (there may be more): non-spiritual, everyday, pragmatic life. (But wait! All life is spiritual! We can debate this later..)

I find this passage in 1 Corinthians 11 amusing and sadly confused by many — it’s not as hard as it is made out to be. It is the same genre as Ephesians 5, yet people seem to understand Eph 5 much easier. Perhaps it is the cultural concretes which people cannot see beyond in the analogy.

My thesis for this passage (which I’m stating more than supporting), simply put: the headcoverings (or lack) are only half the context/analogy: they are concrete, evidential markers of the state of a personal-spiritual relationship (See this compared with the “simple” explanation at the end of this article). Note the 2 halves: the spiritual relationship a each person has with Christ is not to be hindered (generically). Second, particular to Corinth, this relationship to Christ was being hindered by humanity’s interest in sinful things.

I say “each person” because (a) both men & women are called out for their generic interest in sinful stuff in the whole book, and (b) in this passage, men and women are equally united & related “in the Lord.” This is at least an egalitarian starting point; whether it is also the finishing point, we’ll concern ourselves with later.

Likewise the egalitarian semantics involved a “head-as-source” anthropology/theology. This is often derided with semantic and logical arguments, but it does offer an interesting point of unity: if this passage is in regards to men and women being out of fellowship with Christ (and the religious consequences), then there will be no supernatural glory, love, truth or life in one’s thoughts, affections or behaviors; only that weak kind which is naturally birthed. If this is the case, then this passage deepens before us again, speaking to those who are in a religious context, performing religious activities, but are without any spiritual connection, including any supernatural “spiritual authority” from God. But this topic is foundational, and Paul is stopping one step from this, instead, focusing on something between wives and their husbands.

Another point of contextual confusion is that of women praying publically vs. privately. This is not private, personal, silent, American prayer. This is corporate, out-loud, leadership-prayer (since, as so many are willing to remind us, this text is about leadership).  Further, and more precisely, this text is about church-order: prayer and prophesy are mentioned not just together, but more frequently than any other term (especially authority, leadership, submission or glory).

All these reasons lead me to understand verse 13 as “Judge for yourselves: Is it a disgrace for a woman to lead-in-prayer when she is in sin, disconnected from God in her personal spiritual life?”

Having a clarifying lens of “uncovering=disconnection” for wives & “covering=disconnection” for men, we can go through and check our understanding. The earlier text (verse 5) could be understood as simple-replacement: “Every woman who prays or prophesies without a covering dishonors her [head] husband.” Yup, that is more or less in-line. First, sociologically, my wife and I will reflect each other’s values and nature. If my wife is troubled in sin, and she is prophesying, doesn’t this disconnect reflect on me? Verse 7, likewise, can be read as “a man ought not be disconnected from God or hide his glory[relationship to Christ]“. The second half of verse 7, I tenatively logically consider that man is the glory of Christ (like Eph 5: church, body of Christ, glorious).

Still, there are admittedly many questions remaining: angels? “woman is the glory of man”?

All this to say there is a simplest explanation: “good Corinthian wives had head-coverings.” To be a good Christian wife in Corinth, you should actually follow the culture, so ppl don’t think you are able to be both a whore and a Christian.” In this scenario, a wife would dishonor her husband by calling public attention to herself praying/prophesying in front of people) and give them the impression she wasn’t married, or even worse, dressed up like a whore. I believe this is the simple interpretation and application I have heard growing up for general conservative dress amongst Christian wives. But the application was off: the analogy of all women’s clothing “in the world” as equal to “whoring” is hardly the case.

Finally, the worst crime I consistently see is not just a return to cultural norms after learning “Biblical” values, but an enforcement of cultural norms with the weight of God. Using God as your wrecking-ball/bull is never a good idea, and will only kill people. What do I mean by this? Here, I am attempting to counter the false-analogy of “women have children, and I don’t, so of course we’re different.” That’s not just a conflation of roles & scales.. That there are functions which my wife performs better than I do, and vice versa is not the question or concern. But what if she is better at (and enjoys more than I!) earning an income? More importantly, am I unwilling to learn and change to improve our situation, not just pragmatically, but even for the gospel? The worst example is “women should stay home with kids.” Really? For thousands of years men worked near the home, and the boys did their chores around the home, learning directly form the father. Most importantly, is there directly a verse which says “all men must not raise their children”? All that to say, 1 Corinthians 11 speaks much about culture and wives, but whether I am in any authority over her, Paul later addresses that we are each in authority over one another, to submit to one another, and where she excels, I would be just plain dumb (independent of unspiritual) to not let her live out who God has created her to be.

Am I treading a fine line between two heated sides? Yes, and I will continue to do so gladly, since few others seem willing to.

I think I’m confused about what I think is & isn’t faith.
There’s faith *concerning* something, faith *in* something. They must both exist to be of any ‘utility’. There are contexts in which faith is appropriate, and some where faith is not.

Yet I feel a strong compulsion to fideism, that all life is faith. Not in the sense that over-religious take it, but in a philosophical sense of pragmatism: that I’m not able to prove that you are real, but I have no real alternative than to act like you are, continuing in this world, despite my lack of “absolute” knowledge. This is a metaphysical faith — as to what is or is not reality. Yet, I am not comfortable calling all my perceptions of the observable world ‘reality’. I *believe* reality to be bigger, more inclusive of the spiritual (super-natural) (forces/personalities/plans/plots). Again, is this now outside the realm of metaphysics? This is precisely where Kant draws the line. And to some degree, rightly so. Our categories of time, space, personhood, etc are all learned (so says sociology) here from our experience/others, and there is no real reason for us to have direct ability to reason / apply direct ideas to them. Such is simply imagination. Most blog-readers will revolt, but seriously — this is precisely the consequences of Kant. This is directly what he was troubled about. Leibnitz’s Monadology-world was mostly imagination to Kant. But the best part? Kant wasn’t an atheist. He wasn’t trying to kill off religion, just, as I am, understand what faith is, what knowledge is, and where the looney-bins in the middle lie, and confuse the Truth for everyone else.

As an aside, I want to take on/clarify the nature/nurture thing. Christians of the conservative sort will often place man’s worth in being a human, using some confusing terminology of “direct creation” of God. This, oddly enough, is heretical. God is not continually creating, he stopped at day 7. He may be upholding & sustaining, but that’s not what they said. Nevertheless, an important philosophical question has been what is innate to man? The religious will say “a soul” (but that doesn’t answer the question of how much, and what kind of knowledge). The empiricist will say “nothing.” The rationalist will say “could be anything, likely plenty.” The Apostle Paul considered men to learn of God both ways, written on our hearts, and seen in creation. Sociology today will be more in-line with the empiricists of old, since we are born into a world already-started-and-on-its-way. There are cultural norms and symbols (called language) which has developed and progressed, and we merely pick it up (or are forced to learn it!). Notice how similar this is to God’s work: not creation, but sustaining. Notice also, how I don’t feel a great need to answer this question, just taking note of what is and is not readily knowable.

Returning to what is and is not faith, there is always the trouble of sociological data which tells of psychological projection: that Christians are those predisposed to “see” the world through religious eyes, like the artist predisposed to see through aesthetic eyes, and the musician, through orchestral, sonorous eyes and ears. This is a dandy position, but while writing this out, I realised, it is too dandy. It’s too easy, too simple, too comfortable. It has no prescription for change, no interest in cross-communication (of which I am entirely), and worst of all, it fearfully promotes individualism and group-ism which is always a tad too divisive for my likes. Such is the “wisdom” we hear all too often. No pre-disposition theories for me. Sad how inclusion theories rapidly turn exclusive.

So what can we say about faith? Is it “faith” for the young girl to believe Mr.Bear is drinking his tea? Is it “faith” for the dog to wait by the door, because you come home everyday at 6pm (and likewise the congregant who simply attends consistently every week)?
These two examples are often countered by what I shall hereby call the “duty of expectation.” The congregant is faithful, not just because he is *consistent* (methodological) but that he ‘expects’ ‘something’ (from God) to happen. Further (and even worse) this is meant to mean “right now.” See how this devolves rapidly to a prior position of “God is always doing something, and you need to keep watch, otherwise you’ll miss it/him!” I am fully aware that I am “missing” “the blessing” of God’s activity in this world. But understand the difference: they see God in the shadows, lurking. I see (believe) God in the forefront, maintaining all life at it’s deepest physiological/physical-chemical-particle-physics level. Christ *is* (I believe) the logos. (How’s that for a subject of an idealism/materialism debate!) Studying this world is studying Christ.. but not in a universe-as-God’s-body way. Upholding creation with One’s power & word is mightily different than essense.

Anyways, I feel like my personal-life-faith is macroscopic: I’m living out my large-scale plans which (I believe) will further God’s (Jesus’) life-work on this planet (were he still around). I also feel like my faith is at times empty and utterly blind, filled with nothing but hope. I doubt anything will happen, but I will act anyways.. or somethings I’ve given up on & don’t act anymore. If nothing happens, then so be it: resignation (and potentially bitterness). If something happens: enjoy it, run with it. This world *is* bitter. Christ tasted it’s effect (and likely affect), and did not keep himself from it.
Kierkegaard would call this resignation half-way to faith, and the truly faithful to be beyond resignation, enjoying life’s gifts even in their absense.

I’m stuck on the topic for now, but that’s the depth I’ve got so far.

Sure they don’t exist, but their role of theologian seems to be taken on in philosophy, especially the German Lutheran ones of the 1800′s.

While there were plenty of “actual” theologians after the Reformation, philosophers moved thought along in a distinct way. Grant their way was inaccessible to the average joe, and that void of practice was taken up by Wesley, and the other 1800′s preachers. This new arising piety along with some strange conclusions of the Philosopher-Theologians lead to the early 20th century backlash against philosophers & modern life & thought in general.

..well, at least, that’s what I woke up a few days ago thinking..

A Series of Questions:

A refresher: What are the 4 major areas of Philosophy?
* Metaphysics (with a subset in ontology)
* Epistemology
* Value-Theory: Ethics & Aesthetics

Of these, which “is” Christanity? Many would say in our time “ethics”. My parents generation certainly would. But doesn’t Christianity make claims regarding the nature of this world (as well as the next!)? Doesn’t it make claims as to what we can and do know? Certainly there are ethical statements as well. From a philosophic perspective, Christianity is, requires, and encompasses all areas of philosophy.

Take the 19th century philosopher Hegel. He was a believing Christian in his day. He made metaphysical claims as to “what was real.” His claims were so vast and ‘certain’ that they are and were a full *system* of thought. Those punk-kids of you who despise “organized religion” probably have more issues with this guy than with the Pope (ok, so maybe not, but close). Systematic thinking is good. It challenges us to make sure our ideas are *coherent*. Why that’s important I’ll hold off on. The trouble here is that no one today believes Hegel’s system of theology/Christianity is “true” or “what is”. Why? Because things change, and people realize the errors in others.

What I now propose is the 20th century Christianity produced another system of thought, though not one of metaphysics. Metaphysically, Christians started trusting science’s “If I see it, then it’s real” (naive realism/materialism) for their everyday, pragmatic view of the world. This foundation lead to a general belief that “The way things *are*, can not be changed, but the way you act can be.” Christians decided to trust science for their metaphysics, but they could not trust science for their guide into ethics, and rightly so, since it was only adding to the list of ethical questions with all its options.

This ethical entrance produced not just here-and-there spotty ethics, but a whole system of ethics amongst the more rational Christians. God, and/or the Bible could answer our questions, and so “Biblical” Christians sought to tease out all the ethics they could to serve out to the hungry masses, as well as unify the ethical system.

The question our new generation of Christians is now faced with: was the ethical system handed to us, taught to us every Sunday (often in place of theology), right? This skeptical stance will likely put the previous generation, who put their whole lives to understanding ethics, on edge! How can these kids question our logic!

The reflective process (which each generation undertakes) is often not one of reason, but one of affection. I do not deny that there are systematic, logical answers in ethics. What I deny is that objective ethics is Faith, not faith. Faith, as a System, is really just Enlightened Reason. There is trust, but trust in a logical system, not a person, and certainly not directly in a deity.

This is an age-old balance between objectivity and subjectivity. Where does truth lie? Many up front would say “In the Bible, in the creeds” or others “In reason”. I suppose I am claiming more like Kierkegaard: Truth is not in this physical world; I only trust that I have it.

Above all I believe that Christianity is about Jesus being Truth, whom we as individuals subjectively commune with through faith. To say that again: My daily actions are to be trusting Him. When I face an ethical dilemma, what am I to do? God has given me reason, history, His Word, friends and my wife. These are enough ‘priests’ already. We will figure out what to do, and do as we have decided. Our actions “in faith” are that of a stand-in: trust that we are enacting His will on this planet; trust that He would do the same; trust that I do not need another preist to keep me from directly communing with him in prayer and expression of concern.

But all the masses need direction! Without a system it will be mass-chaos! This is (by the way) the same logic which leads people to assume that anarchy=chaos. I am not opposed to organization, I am not opposed to communication. Nor am I opposed to structure. But Jesus has given us the structures we need: husband-and-wife, those with like-faith, rememberance of His death & resurrection. I believe we only *think* we need more. Otherwise, we become text-book, cookie-cutout people.

#1:
-How much theology you know (content)
-How much Christian-ese you know (form/language)
=Trouble: The form/content split: You can say things without knowing the consequence/significance. If there is content behind the Christianese, that’s better. But it still doesn’t solve the outside-perspective problem in #5.

#2:
-How much you love people?
-How much you love knowledge?
=Trouble: The world can do these things too. True, there is debate on the depth of “what does the world know” & “how good can the world be”.. see #4)

#3:
-How social you are (not necessarily how much you love them)
-How elitist (my ppl/snobs) you are.
=Trouble: Christians are our own ppl/community (but it’s not just an insider thing)

#4:
-How sinful this world/ppl/a person/thing is.
-How wonderfully God-made this world/ppl/person/my wife is(are).
=Trouble: Both are true. Can’t be a romantic without being a skeptic.

Conclusions:

Too much rationality (note: this is different than ‘thinking’ or ‘logical’, nevermind the context) is as much a problem as too much romanticism.
This, I think is lately a HUGE problem. Within American, Big-Money (‘protected’) Christianity, there is no ‘bad’. There is no falling out. There is no pain to be had or seen. That which is “horrible” is hardly so.

Too much ‘ethics’ leads to elitism.
Explanation: Too much ‘ethics’ can lead to a redefining of what is actual “sin”. Is sin a simple statement of “that which the world does, but not what Christians do”, or is sin “that which any of the world does, and if Christians do it, they sin.” or shall we exit that short-term debate & claim that all men are sinners & sin everyday of their lives. Is the issue even “acts of sin” at all?

Not understanding something drives me up a wall. Even worse, when I’ve been told something over and over so much that I can no longer think about what something is actually communicating. Latest example? Proverbs 16.3: “Commit your works to the LORD, and your plans will be established.” Seriously, WHAT does that MEAN?

First off, it’s in parallel with the next verse, and in context with the whole chapter on intention and action.

Second, this whole idea of “committing” as an isolated act like a magic wand or a magic spell/incantation is bunk. That’s hardly Christianity, and that’s hardly helpful. So what of commitment? Isn’t it kind of like responsibility? A kind of promise? It’s certainly trust-faith.. despite what happens, I’m “committed” to do something.

Now, that kind of commitment is usually based more on a person’s pride and willpower to enact and overcome obstacles… and that kind of pride-based commitment is forbidden in the fifth verse: “The LORD abhors every arrogant person; one can be sure that they will not go unpunished.” So, in making plans, we can commit to them only if they are deemed worthy by our God, correct? That seems to make so much more sense than using God as a pure transactional Santa Claus; however, this task of getting a stamp-of-approval on our plans is of course harder than we expect.

With God being a person, who wants the best for each person (and knowing that His love is best for everyone), we now have responsibilities attached to this commitment-ing we would like. Sure, “just ask God”, but don’t play Him, He’s certainly no fool.

Any one of us can plan and “commit” to any plan, independent of any external circumstance, but to press forward despite circumstance and independent of the One-who-knows (the future) is certainly foolish, and explicitly dangerous and likely painful. And isn’t that what these verses in chapter 16 are on about? Anyone can act, but there’s consequences, and actions are to be in context and backed up by more than a single person’s pride.

So, I suppose it’s less of “commit to your plans” as popular notions request, and more of “commit to God”, who knows your plans and who has plans of His own. But still, this “commit my plans to God” is a funny grammar.

Pick the term:
1) Accurate
2) Infallible
3) Precise
4) Sufficient
5) Effective

Which one (a) do you like? (b) do you feel best represents a man’s ability to comprehend perfect Deity? (c) is most communicative within the general populus?

Now, I know these are 3 separate questions, and likely to have 3 separate list-rankings.. but I’m prone to think of them in the same way, with #2 most-popular in dogmatic minds and #1 more happily in my mind. Do they say/mean the same thing? Sure they do. So why the dogmatic need (fear.. what? no love in fear?) to “defend” terminology? This is, obviously, a matter of “official” terms vs. common-man’s thinking, but seriously, there is such a thing as a dead language.. and dead orthodoxy.. and I’m usually pro-life, and anti-death.

And since we’re on about fear, here’s mine: “I’ve heard you (Mr. Dogmatist) use the same terms as so many other people who I’ve heard use blatant fallacy and ill-logic.. so, I’m scared that you keep using the same terms.. Cuz anyone can use the terms/language, but that doesn’t mean they ‘get it’.. and I most of all want to know that you understand what life, love, truth & Jesus are all about.. and I just can’t do that unless you get creative with your vocab.”

Of course, the reply then comes: “But I don’t know you’re withing orthodoxy unless you use the proper terms.”

Is this all we have? Such an impasse of communication?

As to the importance of life and the reality of it communicating something, we might all agree. Specifically what it’s communicating, to whom, what it means, and the consequences.. that’s not so agreed upon. We understand that sin is bad, and our lives speak our theology. That’s the beginning of one of many arguments towards a holy(character of God) daily lifestyle.

But life isn’t that clean; that sin we try to avoid is undermining, active against us, confusing us, giving us a new foundation which we try to live upon.. and most sadly, it works. Life doesn’t crash-and-burn 100% when you sin. It’s a slow-way down. And the energy of youth is often enough to recover the tail-spins which can come quick. We simply learn to “not do that again.” And that’s what I’ll call “bottom-up” living: when experience teaches, and we build an idealism/expectation from it.

There’s another method, obviously “top-down”.. where we demand our idealism (from whatever source, be it parents, church/religion, youthful hopes, etc). No matter the experience, we will fight against reality to hold to our hopes. Ethics are strong, requirements high. Thanks to American Pragmatism, the latter is laughed at, and the former a stronghold of American secular living.

But my Theology says a few things.. That how I live says stuff about God. Now, for finer points, my life says stuff about God because I claim his way as my own. The “gap” question here is does everyone’s life communicate their theology? The simple answer is yes. But the other ‘gap’ question is, “Does everyone’s life communicate their perspective on God?” And the corollary, “Does everyone’s life display their commentary on God?”

Now, take the simple Christian, who is able to follow the idealism of the conservative american variety. He lives in an undisturbed box that he claims God wants him in, and he has no trouble attaining his perfection. Likely pity is his take on the rest of the sin-filled world. What is he communicating? Transcendence of and isolated God, yes. Immanence of Jesus that eats with the sinners? No. Immanance that loves and helps? No. Certainly, we can call this ‘Christianity’ a half-breed– mixed with selfish isolationism/protectionism of keeping oneself clean first AND last.

Take the avant-guard Christian.. often found on uni campuses, stuck(whether by his own choice or the housing dep’t) with a roomie who sleeps around and invites him to do the same.. Challenged on all fronts to NOT get up on sunday for fellowship, and challenged even on Sunday by people who are in the previous category, and have no concept to help him towards a holiness which is God’s. Immanence is not his trouble.. he’s IN the world, clearly. The transcendence of God’s character which he is originally designed for no longer seems reasonable, possible. The people he meets “outside the box” and still appear happy challenge.

Now, about those people he meets, out there in the world. Some who are taken by their sin and revel in it. Claim it as an identity. What are they saying about God? (1) Perhaps that they have no knowledge of his claim to holiness? Or that they have knowledge (Romans 1!) but there’s just no one ’round confirming it, encouraging them, helping them realize the goodness and long-term best. (2) Alternatively, they are unaware the connection of their daily lives to consequence.. communicating to God that they value something other than him. That’s a scary thing, and I think most people don’t realize their actions are communicating this.

Precisely.

I don’t think I’m aware of this either. I’m not convinced the church is communicating this enough; I’m not convinced that’s my message I take to those in the world.

This means that that college-roommate who’s liberal with his sexuality is directly saying God’s meaning and purpose in sexuality isn’t compelling, valuable, or of any pragmatic use. And the church is quick to jump to try and recover this message (often without the theological base, too!)But to the one who has never heard or perhaps has forgotten, his life isn’t about God, and it isn’t about communicating anything. It’s just as self-centred as the protectionist Christian, only exactly in the opposite direction. (and in this case, the protectionist christian is “better” only because he’s got 1 problem of selfishness not 2!)So selfishness of all is evident. All are indicted, no reason or cause for anything but humility. But pride fills up instead, denying consequence– precisely of God’s concern of such matters.

———-

Restart.

At this point, I’m confused. I started off this post regarding my friend who’s sin is her identity. She’s happy.. honestly happy. She’s got a life that’s working enough for her. There’s enough people confirming her actions, and there’s enough people able to keep her going. All people live by what they see and feel. Bottom-up experiential living is the norm. And that is authentic, which is often more than in the top-down lives.

But I feel I’m squished in the middle. I’ve lived both top-down (lead to such inauthenticity that lead to depression) and I’ve lived bottom-up, which can lead to frustration.

I know God’s message to me is love. That’s enough to solve the frustration of bottom-up living, get oneself out of it’s addictions and demands for peace and ease.

Perhaps that’s one of the homosexual issues. They get frustrated with the opposite sex, while being so comfortable with those who are like-minded and so retract from those who think, act, value differently instead of entering in to the messy other. Just like a married man who doesn’t know what to do with his wife or children, and so retracts into work or his hobbies or an affair where he DOES know what to do with, where he finds solace and ease. Fact is, both are sin. Both are not living fully, both are self-protectionist, and both are “happy” ..just one takes more work: fighting self and ease.

———–

Round 3:

So what of it all? Our lives are filled with our own anti-consequential desires, decisions & actions, all communicating that I’d rather live my bottom-up way than any top-down idealism keeping me from pragmatic reality. All the while, breaking God’s heart, shoving him aside, missing out on an authenticity deeper than the termites have eaten away.

Now, that’s not to say that God’s way is as the conservatives make it out to be. And that’s the confusing part for everyone involved. They present a highly in-authentic, illogical, top-down idealism which only works inside their own box of pretty-pretty-land. That’s not palatable, let alone tasty to most. And it’s not God’s design, hope nor future for any of us.

What am I to say? God’s broken heart over our denial of him is ‘ok’? Our lives communicating constant rejection of him inconsequential? Is there a difference between me trying to not reject him, and me giving up, giving in to my natural choices which speak rejection? And maybe my own effort will only build my pride.

I’ve got to say, the homosexual, the addicted-to-sports-male and the protectionist Christian are of the same tree. All act out of the same motives, though some more hidden than others. Telling God, “f*** you!” nicely doesn’t keep you in the kingdom.

All I can find that is true is continual recognition of all this and of the final payment for these crimes by God himself, and the continual attempts to value him, his ways, his kingdom.. everything else will confuse, everything else is noise.There is no “best” life. There is no one who achieves. We all rationalize and twist and turn.