On St. Joseph’s Hospital
(Also posted in http://montroseblvd.wordpress.com)
Since Anne Rice’s big ‘goodbye Christianity’ spiel I’ve started following her fan page on facebook, and I must say she posts the good stuff. Now I must say, I’ve yet to meet a person of whom I agree with 100%. I’d like to think Jesus is that guy but the reality is, in my sinfulness I don’t agree with all of his methods but the thing about him is, he wins every single argument we have. That being said, here are somethings you need to know about my thinking before reading on: (1) I think death is an unfortunate thing and if God had his way, we’ll all live eternally. (2) I’d like to think that I believe more on the sovereignty of God than any reformed person I know. Such that, he does not need me, my argumentative prowess, and my systematic theology (or lack thereof) to prove his existence and/or explain his mind. I believe he’s a big boy and that he can handle those stuff better than I can. And (3) I think we should own up to our stupidity and stop pinning every single evil on God, if God was to completely eradicate evil, I would be the first one to be extinguished (and you should think the same about yourself). That being said, let’s talk abortion.
What All The Fuzz Is About
Anne Rice has been posting these past few days a thread of articles regarding the ‘excommunication’ of St. Joseph’s Hospital and Medical Center in Phoenix AZ. Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted of the Archdiocese of Phoenix revoked his consent of the of Hospital’s utilization of the ‘Catholic’ this past Tuesday (Dec. 21, 2010) stating,
“The reason for this decision is based upon the fact that, as Bishop of Phoenix, I cannot verify that this health organization will provide health care consistent with authentic Catholic moral teaching as interpreted by me in exercising my legitimate Episcopal authority to interpret the moral law.”
The Arizona Republic, a local newspaper reported, “The case involved a terminally ill woman suffering from pulmonary hypertension. Her condition was worsened by her pregnancy, to the point where her death was imminent.” The New York Times, furthermore reports, “In November 2009, a 27-year-old mother of four in her third month of pregnancy arrived at St. Joseph’s. She was diagnosed with pulmonary hypertension, a serious complication that might well have killed her if she had continued the pregnancy.”
According to the Hospital’s official statement, this is how they responded to the case:
“Consistent with our values of dignity and justice, if we are presented with a situation in which a pregnancy threatens a human life, our first priority is to save both patients. If that is not possible we will always save the life we can save, and that is what we did in this case.” Furthermore, “We continue to stand by the decision, which was made in collaboration with the patient, her family, her caregivers, and our Ethics Committee. Morally, ethically, and legally we simply cannot stand by and let someone die whose life we might be able to save.”
What A Pickle!
Yes its a pickle and what a sour pickle it is. On the one hand here we have a very ill 27-year old mother of four who is in the brink of loosing her child, on the other, here we have our solid belief system that says the fetus is a human being and his (or her) life is hanging on the next decision, and to make it interesting we have this principal of a priest that says, “hey, I say killing the baby is excommunication worthy.” Let’s say, you are the attending doctor, what would you do? Here are your options: (1) you could try to save the baby by performing an emergency C-section and loose the mother and also, probably the child because he is just 11 weeks old. If you do this you will find favor in the eyes of your local church for not performing an abortion but you’d probably live with the haunting truth that you have just killed the mother and and quite possibly, if not, killed the child as well. (2) You could just go ahead and kill the baby and save the mom without even stopping to contemplate about it. You can damn what the church says and just go ahead and save the mom. Or (3) you can go into that surgery room, sweat your brow off trying to save both mother and child and after all has been exhausted to save both, and having found no hope of saving both, just try and save one, whoever that is living the rest to God.
The Hospital chose the third option. Their stand on the nature of the fetus is clear in their statement, “if we are presented with a situation in which a pregnancy threatens a human life, our first priority is to save both patients. If that is not possible we will always save the life we can save…” There is no question in this regard, the baby and the mother are both ‘patients’, they are both ‘lives’ – in fact, they are both lives that are worth saving.
What I Think About All This
Abortion being the termination of a pregnancy resulting in the death of an embryo or a fetus is always a tragic procedure. There is, however in my estimation a difference between an intentional willful abortion and an abortion that is an unwanted yet inevitable procedure to save a life. The mother in this scenario is not a knocked up teenage girl in search of quick relief from the consequences of pre-marital sex. She, on the contrary, is a mother of four. She is a woman who wants to be a mother. Her personal history is not disclosed but from the information about her children, it can be deduced that she is not one who is wanting an abortion. She was in the hospital to have a baby, she was not there to loose one. It just so happened that she has a life threatening disease, a sickness that threatens not just her own life but the life of her child.
It is an understatement to say that to be the attending physician of this case is difficult, but more so when the fear of God is added to the equation. There is only so much a human being can do to save a life. At the end of the day, this is not a matter of philosophical, ethical, and theological discussion, in that dark operation room, the goal is singular: to save a life.
People who call on the name of God should should be the first to recognize human depravity. Not in the sense of the salvific formula but in the in the most simplistic way: the truth that man is not God. It is God who gives life and it is him who takes it away, just like the old Christian mantra that says, “God is Sovereign.” We have the duty to preserve the sanctity of life because we are made in God’s image. Abortion should never be an option but there is only so much a God-fearing doctor can do. They tried to save both but ended up saving just the mother. We should thank them for trying and leave the unborn child in the loving arms of the God who said, “let the little children come to me for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.”
I am not a Roman Catholic so I will hold my sentiments regarding the Bishop’s decision to excommunicate St. Joseph’s Hospital to myself. But I will say this to my Protestant Brethren, it is in times like this that we are needed by people the most. When there is a loss, when there is grief, when there is sorrow and death, people need the love of God the most. We Christians represent this love. In times like this let us be with people, let us save the philosophical conversation for another day. Let us be ready to be vessels of joy, the one the Church Fathers once called “Eucharist.” May we not abandon those people Jesus gave his life for so that they may have life. Come to think about it, if God the Father was like us and thought that Christ’s death was an abortion he would excommunicate all of us for reaping the benefits of his Son’s death.
Here are my two cents, do with it as you may. Just saying…
Instead of me linking every quote to the original source, I’m listing all the sources I used here:
The Arizona Republic – PDF versions of official statements are available on this link.
Liberation Theology
Man is never satisfied. When the weather is hot he wants it cold, and when its cold, he wants it hot. Alexis de Tocqueville as he discusses religious freedom in Democracy in America remarks, “One of the most usual weakness of the human mind is to want to reconcile opposite principles and to purchase peace at the expense of logic.”[1] Hegel observed such a phenomena in human society which eventually propelled him to his theory that history is the product of a constant struggle of thesis against its anti-thesis. There is truth in Hegel’s theory; indeed, for every thesis there is an anti-thesis which most of the time leads to a synthesis. This is an inevitable truth; a proposition cannot simply exist without an opposition and to resolve the conflict, most people will produce a synthesis to appease the struggle. This method however is but an anesthesia placed on the problem to alleviate the pain it is causing, it is a mere pain reliever, thus it does not fix the struggle. For in synthesizing, the basic tenets of the opposing ideologies are compromised in order to bring about order for order’s sake.
This is especially true for Christianity and Communism. There cannot be a synthesis between God’s sovereign will and man’s utopic desires, however noble it may seem, for God’s divine prerogative will not change nor will it be hampered. By the same token, Communism cannot be merged with Christian ideologies, for it is based on the presupposition of atheism. Furthermore, it is anthropocentric and denies any supernatural intervention from any supernatural being. To synthesize the two therefore will lead to a false understanding and a false interpretation of Christianity and a false application of Communism.
Liberation Theology is such a case. It is a movement that seeks to synthesize Christianity and Communism with the intent of social change. It seeks to combine the two ideologies on the grounds of communal living which both seem to support. It is therefore this paper’s objective to examine this movement as a case study in order to create an argument for the invalidity of such a merge, thus proving that true Christianity cannot merge with any other belief, no matter how seemingly noble the motives may be.
The Immergence of Liberation Theology
Liberation Theology was forged in the impoverished countries of South America in the 1960’s through the works of men and women who sought freedom for the oppressed members of society. The movement was born out of a class struggle in Cuba which evolved into a series bloody revolutions. This was the time of Fidel Castro and Che Guevarra. These two men personified Liberation theology, although a profession of association with this movement cannot be found. Their passion for the liberation of the people of Cuba was so immense, that when Guevara was asked as to what was at stake in Cuba he replied, “the struggle of a people to redeem itself.”[2] Furthermore, in his eulogy for Guevara, Fidel Castro said, “His blood was shed in Bolivia, for the redemption of the exploited and the oppressed”[3] and also, “It is man himself his fellow man, the redemption of his fellowman, that constitutes the objective of the revolutionary.”[4]
Responding to this segment of history, theologians like Gustavo Gutierrez and Jose Miguez Bonino sought contextualize the gospel to address the needs of the socially oppressed at that time, of this Bonino comments,
It is my thesis that, as Christians, confronted by the inhuman condition of existence prevailing in the continent, they have tried to make their Christian faith historically relevant, they have been increasingly compelled to seek an analysis and historical programme (sic) for their Christian obedience. At this point, the dynamics of the historical process, both in its objective conditions and its theoretical development have led them, though the failure of several remedial and reformist alternatives, to discover the unsubstitutable relevance of Marxism.[5]
Having acquired a sort of blessing from the Vatican 2 they proceeded to respond to the needs of their time.
In the present state of affairs, out of which there is arising a new situation for mankind, the Church, being the salt of the earth and the light of the world (cf. Matt. 5:13-14), is more urgently called upon to save and renew every creature, that all things may be restored in Christ and all men may constitute one family in Him and one people of God.[6]
Indenting to address the needs of the poor the theologians resorted to Marxist Communism and in the same way Bathsheeba’s allure grabbed hold of King David’s mind so did Marxism hold captive their ideology.
Simply stated, “Liberation Theology is a theological movement that has attempted to unite theology with the socio/economic concerns of the poor and oppressed. It is characterized by three foundational elements. First is “liberation,” it seeks to harmonize the Bible’s teachings on the deliverance of oppressed people with Communism’s pursuit for the liberation of the working class from the clutches of the Capitalism of the Bourgeois class. The second element is politics, this movement is a political ideology wrapped in theological jargon. Political overtones are evident in this movement as it calls Christians to be more involved in the political real of society. The third is nationalism. The movement is mainly concerned with particular societies or people groups (Hispanic, African-American, Native American, and Females) and not with the proletariat class at a whole. Gustavo Gutierrez, the foremost proponent of the movement comments that his work is, “based on the Gospel and the experiences of men and women committed to the process of liberation in the oppressed and exploited land of Latin America.”[7]
The Precepts of Liberation Theology
For the Wages of Poverty is Death
The concept of poverty, for the adherents of Liberation Theology, is as the concept of sin is for conservative Christians. Liberation theologians define sin as social injustice and economic imbalance. They accuse the conservative of reducing the gospel “to a simple behavioral change”[8] in identifying sin with the “actions that society considers immoral.”[9] To them, the financially well-off is to blame for the poverty of the poor, for in being rich, they directly and indirectly oppress the poor. Elsa Tamez, one of the leading Liberation Theologians assert, “their situation is not the result of chance but is due to the actions of the oppressors,” as she observes, “the poor in the Bible are the helpless, the indigent, the hungry, the oppressed the needy, the humiliated – And it is not nature it is not nature that has put them in this situation; they have been unjustly impoverished and despoiled by the powerful.” [10]
Poverty in their view is the disease God detests the most in mankind and the reason why He sent Jesus to liberate man. Tamez, summarizes the gospel as, “The central message is this: the situation cannot continue as it is; impoverishment and exploitation are not God’s will; but now there is hope, resurrection, life, change. . . The reign of God, which is the reign of justice is at hand.”[11] Therefore, they believe that God has chosen sides; He chose to be on the side of the poor thus sending Jesus to show them the path to liberation. With this view, they interpret Jesus’ assertion of the fulfillment of Isaiah 61:1,2 in Luke 4,
The Spirit of the LORD is upon me, because he has anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; He has sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and recovery to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed; to proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD. . . Today this Scripture is fulfilled in your hearing. (Luke 4:18,19; 21)[12]
Poverty thus for them is a miserable state in that it is a violation of God’s justice. More than this however, the accumulation of wealth in their view is not compatible with Christianity since it is to the detriment of the poor. With this assertion they quote the prophet Jeremiah, “Woe to him who builds his house by unrighteousness and his chambers by injustice, who uses his neighbor’s services without wages and gives him nothing for his work.” (Jer. 22:13)
But the Gift of God is Liberation
As a result of the Liberation Theologian’s presupposition that the poor is to be liberated from oppression, it follows that their concept Soteriology will basically be economic. Thus, the proponents adopted the doctrines of Communism and tried it to merge it with Christianity, for the two ideologies seem to agree on the improvisation of communal life. It is for this reason that Liberation Theology is viewed by its critics as a Communist Movement rather than a Christian one. Thus, Jose Miguez – Bonino, one of the prominent Liberation Theologians coins the critics’ remarks,
The text of Scripture and tradition is forced into the Procrustean bed of ideology, and the theologian who has fallen prey to this procedure is forever condemned to listen only to the echo of his own ideology – There is no redemption for this theology because it has muzzled the word of God . . .[13]
Thus, it should be noted that there is a distinction between Communism and Liberation Theology and it is primarily metaphysical in nature. While Liberation Theologians, as previously noted, begin with the existence of God; Karl Marx in the Manuscripts of 1844, on the other hand assert that, “Communism begins in the outset with atheism.”[14] Beyond this, however, the two ideologies are common in their practicality.
The cry of Marxist Communism is laud and clear, “Working men of all countries, unite!”[15] It is a call for a revolution against the Bourgeois class who oppresses the Proletariat. Due to the Bourgeois oppression,
The proletarian is without property; his relation to his wife and children has no longer anything in common with the bourgeois family relations; modern industrial labour (sic), modern subjection to capital, the same in England as in France, in America as in Germany, has stripped him off every trace of national character. Law, morality, religion, are to him so many bourgeois prejudices, behind which lurk in ambush just as many bourgeois interests.[16]
This is also the cry of Liberation Theologians. They call Christians to act out their professed faith by addressing the needs of those in poverty.
The author has personally witnessed such a cry in his country the Philippines. At 6:45 in the evening of February 22, 1986, General Fidel V. Ramos, the Vice Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, and Juan Ponce Enrile, the Minister of Defense defected from the corrupt dictatorship of Ferdinand Marcos on a press conference aired in the radio. This incidence created a commotion and thus the two sought refuge in Camp Crame, the Police headquarters of the Philippines. At 9:00 P.M. of that same day, Jaime Sin, the renowned Cardinal of Manila issued a call on Radio Veritas the leading radio station of that day, calling all Filipinos to come to the rescue of these two men.
Our two good friends (Armed Forces Vice Chief of Staff Fidel Ramos and Defense Minister Juan Ponce Enrile) have shown their idealism. I would be very happy if you would help them. I wish that bloodshed will be avoided. Pray to Our Lady that we will be able to solve our problems peacefully. I am sorry to disturb you at this late hour, but it is precisely at a time like this that we most need your support for our two good friends.[17]
The response came rapidly; the streets were filled with people barricading the entrance to the camp so that no one could abduct Ramos and Enrile inside. The movement of people then evolved into a peaceful revolution which led to the overthrow of Marcos a days after the defection of February 25, 1986. This was the height of Liberation Theology in the Philippines. From this point on, the Roman Catholic Church gained prominence in the nation and was able to manipulate the political realm of the country into catering to the needs of the poor. Thus when confronted with an alleged transaction with gamblers, Sin comments,
If Satan appears to me and gives me money, I will accept the money and spend it all for the poor. It is not the practice of the Church to ask donors where their donations come from. Our duty is to make sure all donations go to the poor. The devil remains . . . my enemy but I will use his resources to feed the poor.[18]
In this manner the Liberation Theology soaked Roman Catholic Church in the Philippines continuously manipulate the nation’s political affairs.
Objections to Liberation Theology and to the Synthesis of Christianity and Communism in General
Liberation Theology perceives the message of the Gospel as an economic call for social reconstruction to liberate the financially impoverished. They claim that, “God identifies with the poor to such an extent that their (the poor) rights become the rights of God,”[19] therefore their concept of salvation is one of economic liberation. This however is a misconception of the biblical salvific plan; it is the result of poor hermeneutics which leads to a false application of the gospel. Thus, Ronald Nash concludes, “Liberation Theology is deficient in its diagnosis and prescription. It fails to explain the real causes of poverty and thus it cannot provide a cure since it misunderstands the nature of the disease.”[20]
Karl Marx and Frederick Engels made their stance on religion in the Communist Manifesto, Communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience.”[21] This is however a vain pursuit, for Communism cannot abolish religion. It however, replaces popular religion with another, for Communism in itself is a religion. It is a set of beliefs people hold on to intellectually and most of the time through faith for the purposes of worship; in this case the worship of the deified idealism and self. Thus, inasmuch as Christianity and Hinduism cannot be synthesized into one new religion, Christianity and Communism cannot be joined together to form another religion.
On the Inadequacy of Marxist Communism
Communism is a vain pursuit of a utopic hope. History has proven over and over again that no human government lasts forever. Time and again, governments crumble and fall, all forms of government from the theocratic Egyptian Empire, through the democratic Roman Republic and to the tyrannical French Empire under Napoleon not one of those great empires lasted. All of these powers sought to bring order to human society, but all of them fell because of human corruption. No human government is exempt from this.
There is no consistency in communistic principles. The Communist Manifesto blames the Bourgeois of oppressing the Proletariat, and thus it calls for the abolition of this class. After the abolition of the middle class, the Communists plan to establish government that will control all resources and will disburse it equally among the peoples. This prospect is pointless, for in doing so, the working class still remains as slaves so to speak, just under a new lord. This is to put it bluntly, a movement that seeks to keep everybody poor.
Communism in their pursuit for equality abolishes along with the Bourgeois the human rights of the members of society. The Capitalism the Communistic Society desperately seeks to abolish is actually a protection for Human Rights, of this Ronald Nash comments,
Capitalism is a system of voluntary relationships within a framework of laws which protect people’s rights against force, fraud, theft and violations of contracts. . . Capitalism also gives people the right to take risks. One reason societies move forward is because of people who are willing to risks with their time, money, and sometimes their lives.[22]
Thus, to abolish free trade is to abolish the working class’ freedom and their hope of prosperity.
Finally, Communism is a weak of excuse for the refusal to strive for excellence and prosperity as a nation. Communistic countries blame the demise of their economies on capitalistic countries such as the United States as if they did not have any part in their nation’s failure. Gutierrez comments,
The underdeveloped of poor nations, as a global social fact, is then unmasked as the historical sub-product of the development of other countries. In fact, the dynamic of the capitalist system leads to establishment of a center and a periphery, simultaneously generating progress and riches for the few, and social disequilibrium, political tensions and poverty for the majority[23]
Thus as Michael Novak observed, “Nothing prevented the Brazilians from inventing the combustion engine, the radio, the airplane, penicillin, and other technologies,”[24] but they attribute their loss to those who have.
On the Misinterpretation of Scripture
While it is true that man is oppressed, it is not true that this oppression is economic. Man is oppressed by his own sin, his wrong doing, his rebellion against God. It is for this reason that Jesus came to earth, liberate man from the clutches of Satan and sin, and bringing him into salvation and the eternal life it brings with it. This is the true gospel. The task of the church, therefore, is to witness this great truth to the world. Carl Henry remarks, “God works through the Christian community to change the world. Its task is not to force new structures upon society at large, but to be the new society, to exemplify in its own ranks the way and will of God.”[25] Thus it is not the job of the church to create a new society, its job is to influence and preserve the world as its salt and light.
Conclusion
Liberation Theology is but a case study of man’s pursuit to synthesize the gospel with the ideologies of the times. No matter how positive this might sound, this pursuit, however, is found to be in vain. Though the precepts of Communism is somewhat alluring and to some extent seems to jive with the communal living Christianity proposes. These two ideologies run on two separate tracks, one towards God and one towards self, and there is no middle ground between the two. The test of truth is consistency and thus, manipulating Marxist ideologies combining it with acrobatic exegesis will prove to lead to a false ideology both theoretically and practically.
[1]Stephen D. Grant, trans., Democracy in America, by de Tocqueville, Alexis (Indianapolis: Hackett, 2000), 187.
[2]Che Guevara, Guerrilla Warfare (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1969), 14-15.
[3]Che Guevara, Reminiscences of the Cuban Revolutionary War (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1969), 26.
[4]Castro, Fidel, Writers in the New Cuba, ed. J. M. Cohen, Words to the Intellectuals (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1967), 183.
[5]Jose Miguez Bonino, Christians and Marxists: the Mutual Challenge of Revolution (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1976), 19.
[6] Paul VI, “Decree On The Mission Activity Of The Church,” Rc.net, http://www.rc.net/rcchurch/vatican2/v2miss.txt/ (accessed February 21, 2008).
[7]Gustavo Gutierrez, A Theology of Liberation, trans. Sister Caridad Inda and John Eagleson (Maryknoll: Orbis, 1973), ix.
[8]Elsa Tamez, Third World Liberation Theologies, ed. Deane William Ferm, Good News for the Poor (Maryknoll: Orbis, 1986), 190.
[9]Elsa Tamez, Third World Liberation Theologies, ed. Deane William Ferm, 195.
[10]Ibid.,193.
[11]Ibid., 190.
[12]I have used the NKJV throughout this paper, unless otherwise noted.
[13]Jose Miguez Bonino, Doing Theology in a Revolutionary Situation (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975), 87.
[14]Karl Marx, The Wisdom of Karl Marx, comp. Morris Stockhammer (New York: Citadel, 1967), 19.
[15]Frederick Engels and Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto: Complete with Seven Rarely Published Prefaces (USA: Filiquarian, 2005), 55.
[16]Ibid., 20.
[17]Cardinalrating.com, “Famous Quotes From The Irrepressible Cardinal Sin,” http://www.cardinalrating.com/cardinal_105__article_1704.htm. (accessed February 12, 2008).
[18]Ibid.
[19]Elsa Tamez, Third World Liberation Theologies, ed. Deane William Ferm, 195.
[20]Ronald H. Nash, Liberation Theology, ed. Ronald H. Nash, Conclusion (Milford: Mott Media, 1984), 240.
[21]Frederick Engels and Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto, 34.
[22]Nash, Ronald H, Liberation Theology, ed. Ronald H. Nash, The Christian Choice Between Capitalism and Communism (Milford: Mott Media, 1984), 52-53.
[23]Gustavo Gutierrez, A Theology of Liberation, 58
[24]Novak, Michael, Liberation Theology, ed. Ronald H. Nash, A Theology of Development for Latin America (Milford: Mott Media, 1984), 30.
[25]Henry, Carl, Liberation Theology, ed. Ronald H. Nash, Liberation Theology and the Scriptures (Milford: Mott Media, 1984), 191.
Concerning the Pink Elephant Sitting in the Middle of the Room
Nothing could have prepared me for the events that took place that night in Waco. Admittedly I had prepared myself for the worse. I expected to see weird antics, ritualistic dancing, mystic songs, and eerie rituals but what I saw there exceeded my imaginations. I saw broken people; battered souls longing for comfort and peace. I sat there and listened to testimonies of those who have lost all faith, lost reason, lost purpose. My heart broke as I heard people confessing: “I don’t know what it means for God to be faithful,” “I am comfortable in darkness,” and “questions characterize my faith.”
What was I to say? What was I to do?
Sure, I do not agree with what they believe and yet I feel a sort of connection with them, for I myself have doubts. I remembered days in my life when I had to shut myself in my room and weep. Weep for uncertainties, for confusion, for perplexity. I too have felt the world crumbling beneath my feet. I too felt the agony of being uncertain of what the future holds. I too have stared at the void in my soul.
“My tears have been my food day and night, while they say to me continually, ‘where is your God?!’” (Ps. 42:3 ESV)
I sympathize with these people I’ve met and I weep as they, one by one, “leap into the void”. The void does not have to remain. There is an answer to the emptiness in man’s soul. A solution is available, redemption and peace can be found. Wallowing in sorrow will not remove sorrow. I once lived in a void but now I have found hope, but more so, joy and peace. It is not a sin to raise questions, but it is foolishness to not pursue an answer. To our emergent friends: give truth another shot, argue with us, contend with us, fight us, but this I ask, let us be your friends.
Absolutely Paradoxical: A Case for Absolute Truth and a Paradoxical Point of View in Christian Epistemology
Introduction
The world has dramatically transformed from being a rural neighborhood of man to an urban community of multiple ethnicities. The popular worldview since the nineteenth century has been altered from being community centered to self centered and from being founded on an absolute to being based on relative truth. Os Guinness in the book No Place for Truth, reveals the transformation of society.
They were permanent residents. We are nomads, perpetual immigrants, condemned to move from place to place in our own country until finally, if the sinews do not crack, we are allowed to pass to the forgetfulness of retirement. Their needs were simple and related to survival; our needs are complex because our horizons are multiple and our possessions must serve many functions besides those related to survival. They were attached to place, even if they had to move from the towns of their birth and settle elsewhere, and they had a sense of time; we have neither. Their world was permanent because they knew God to be unchanging; ours is impermanent and God seems largely to have disappeared.
The church has indeed suffered greatly the consequences of this paradigm shift. Many local churches which are a part of the evangelical movement, have tried to reconcile the ideal past with the ever changing present through “contextualization”. They sought to make evangelical Christianity relevant to the philosophies of the times. Christianity was often merged with other philosophical beliefs to produce doctrines that are palatable to the taste buds of the non-believing population. In so doing, however, Christianity has somehow lost its distinct identity from the secular world. To state it briefly in this preliminary introduction, the only difference between a modern Christian and a modern secular is that the former attends a church and the latter is timid in that regard.
This paper is a sequel to Virtual Virtue, The Techno-Savvy Church, and The High-Tech Heart which has been submitted earlier. This paper will deal with two essential characteristics of Christian thought that has been lost in the wilderness of postmodernism: the absolute truth and the paradoxical reality. It will argue for the necessity of these in relation to the Christian worldview, for indeed, both the soul and the mind should be saved from the corruption of sin through God’s amazing grace. It stems from John Wesley’s account for genuine Christianity; this is a treatise in genuine Christian thinking.
The Absolute Truth
The belief in the existence of an Absolute Truth is the basis for a valid human epistemology and ethics. It is the driving force that propels innovations in all branches of knowledge, whether in science, philosophy, or theology. Without the conception of the absolute, significant events such as the scientific revolution, the protestant reformation, and the establishment of democracy would never have taken place. For it is indeed true that the major premise of the scientific revolution is that there is a grand designer that has engineered the world and made it possible for one to investigate. The case is also true for the establishment of the democratic government in the United States. It is established on the premise that, “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” The same can also be said regarding the Protestant Reformation, for the reformers held to the existence of a monotheistic God that has revealed himself in Scriptures, thus their cry, “sola scriptura!” Among all the fields of knowledge, however, the preeminence of the Absolute Truth is utterly important in the field of Christian Theology. Truth is the focal point of Christianity, for indeed Jesus himself said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life (John 14:6).” It is thus to be noted, that the genuine Christian’s notion of truth is not that of a mere ideology, on the contrary, it is for him a person – the Godman, Jesus Christ.
The Line of Despair
Francis Schaeffer, in his book, The God Who is There charge the chasm in human thought between the generations to “a change in the concept of truth,” establishing his thesis that, “The tragedy of our situation today is that men and women are being fundamentally affected by the new way of looking at truth, and yet they have never even analyzed the drift which has taken place.” The chasm according to his estimations is brought about by an error on how truth and knowing is approached. Absolutes imply antithesis and the philosopher’s method of appeasing the seeming conflict often times distorts the truth.
In order to preserve the purity of the Absolute Truth, the antitheses should be dealt with presuppositionally. Schaeffer draws a line that divides history into two: the time philosophers argued presuppositionally and the time they ceased to. He sets the divide, which he refers to as the “line of despair”, between Kant and Hegel (Kant being the last one prior to the divide and Hegel the first after). The philosophers prior to the line of despair generally held to presupposition that there was indeed an Absolute Truth. They, along with this attestation, invoked the law of non-contradiction stating that, “A is A, and if one has A it cannot be a non-A.” Therefore, “if anything was true, the opposite is false.”
Schaeffer points to Hegelian doctrine as the doorway to the line of despair. He says, “Truth, in the sense of antithesis, is related to the idea of cause and effect. Cause and effect produces a chain of reaction which goes straight on in a horizontal line.” Hegel however, changed this, “I have a new idea. From now on let us think this way: instead of thinking in terms of cause and effect, what we really have is a thesis and opposite it an antithesis, with the answer to their relationship not a horizontal movement of cause and effect, but a synthesis.”
If truth is to be the arbiter of morality; truth in itself should be undefiled. Therefore, it has to remain pure, set apart from external influences. There can be no synthesis between the Absolute Truth and any other proposition, for in so doing; the latter is perverted to produce a totally distinct entity from what it originally was. When red is mixed with white, the product is pink. Pink is neither red nor white but something different. It is therefore absurd to call pink red. The thesis is not the synthesis for the synthesis is the distorted thesis; the synthesis therefore is the distorted truth. As G.K. Chesterton in the Orthodoxy says, “It (the Early Church) has always a healthy hatred of the pink.”
Synthetic Christianity
The demise of evangelical theology is primarily caused by its failure to respond rightly to the changes of the times. It has fallen into the pitfall of compromising its orthodox beliefs in pursuit of a synthesis intended to make Christianity palatable to pagan appetite. A great example is presented by Os Guinness in the book Dining with the Devil:
‘When the Mall of America opened in Minneapolis in August 1992, enthusiasts hailed it as one of the seven wonders of the modern world. The largest, fully enclosed retail and entertainment complex in North America, its statistics were mind-blogging. It boasted enough floor space to fill eighty-eight football fields. It hired twice the number of workers employed by the city of Minneapolis. It anticipated 40 million annual visitors – nine times the population of Minnesota – and its first year budget was twice the city of St. Paul. Nicknamed the “megamall” by Minnesotans, it drew screams, gasps, and tears from those who saw it for the first time. But the strongest attraction of the new Mall of America was the “special services” that came with its four hundred shops. These included “Camp Snoopy,” a seven-acre amusement park complete with a roller coaster, an eighteen-hole miniature golf course, numerous customer services, such as cellular phones for separated shoppers, and the ultimate special service – a church service in the rotunda between Bloomingdale’s and Sears. “A Sunday Mallelujah!” cried the Minneapolis Star Tribune as six thousand flocked to the opening service organized by Woodale Church of Eden Priarie.
The problem in this picture is not that the Church is in the mall, for surely God is no respecter of location, if the Church met in caves and cemeteries, why can’t the 21st century church meet in a mall? The problem is, however, is that the Mall is in the Church. Such is the case not only in the Woodale Church in Minnesota, but indeed also, in most evangelical churches in the world. The Liberation Theology and Emergent Churches are manifestations of this synthesis. The prior is a synthesis of orthodox Christianity with a philosophy of economics while the latter is a synthesis with an epistemological philosophy. Liberation Theology incorporated Marxism into Christianity and the Emergent Church incorporated Postmodernism into Christianity.
Orthodox Christianity in both cases is perverted. The purity of the Christian worldview is compromised and, indeed, eradicated in these two systems of thought. If it is indeed true that Jesus’ teachings are the foundation of the true Church, it must be deduced that the incorporation of any other doctrine will be a corruption of the integrity of the established body and the product of the synthesis thereof cannot be rightly called true Christianity. Liberation Theology and The Emergent Church, therefore, cannot be rightly called authentic Christianity.
The Paradoxical Reality
The trouble with the modernist system is that it bestows undue high regard to logic. The modernist in doing this assumes that he is somewhat able to derive an explanation to every single problem. This, however, is not the case for the world is obvious and subtle at the same time. There are things in the world that can be deduced through the rules of logic, but it is equally true that most of the time logic fails and the thinker is forced to accept a proposition by “faith”. G.K. Chesterton expresses the profundity of reality,
The trouble with this world of ours is not that it is an unreasonable world, nor even that it is a reasonable one. The commonest kind of trouble is that it is nearly reasonable, but not quite. Life is not an illogicality; yet it is a trap for logicians. It looks just a little more mathematical and regular than it is; its exactitude is obvious, but its inexactitude is hidden; its wildness lies in wait.
Take for instance the case of the Darwinian system. The proponents of the evolutionary theory pride themselves in the thought that their system is far more favorable than the Christian doctrine of creationalism on the basis that it is a logically sound system. In a closer analysis, however, of the works of Charles Darwin, it is to be found that even he, is not totally sure about his principles as he concludes, “We do not know all the possible gradations between simple and perfect organisms; nor do we know all the means of dispersion that can occur over great lapses of time; nor do we know how imperfect the geological world is.” The problem in this system is not primarily an issue of logic or rationalism. It is, however, that it fails to acknowledge that the subtlety of the Absolute Truth.
Paradox and the Ancients
The Truth is indeed coherent logical, but that does not mean that it can be understood fully. Some aspects of the Absolute are paradoxical in nature and are difficult to comprehend with bare human mind. A paradox is “a statement or proposition that seems self-contradictory or absurd but in reality expresses a possible truth.”
Consider, for example, the virtue of courage. Courage, according to Cicero is thus defined,
A brave and great spirit is in general seen in two things. One lies in disdain for things external, in the conviction that a man should admire, should choose, should pursue nothing except what is honourable (sic) and seemly, and should yield to no man, nor agitation of the spirit, nor fortune. The second thing is that you should, in the spirit I have described, do deeds which are great, certainly, but above all beneficial, and you should vigorously undertake difficult and laborious tasks which endanger both life itself and much that concerns life.
Simply stated, courage is, as Chesterton says, “a strong desire to live taking the form of a readiness to die,” indeed as Jesus says, “Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. (Mt. 10:39)” These seems to be self-contradictory definitions, but it is indeed true. A brave soldier fights to survive the war. Indeed, not only for himself, but for his comrades and his keen along as well. In order to survive, however, he ought to place himself within an inch of death frequently, fighting for this cause.
The thought of courage in this light seems to be absurd, but this is indeed, true courage. A soldier cannot claim courage when he evades the war for the reason of self-preservation for to do so is cowardice. Nor can he be called courageous when he incessantly put himself in harm’s way with no motive of self-preservation for this is suicide, indeed, a form of retreat. Yet a true courageous soldier is one who fights the war to survive it, it cannot be seen through any light but this. This is not synthesis of bravery and suicide for the two binaries have not merged but stood together as one truth with two distinct facets which are seemingly contradictory. Red and white can be seen in two ways: as pink or as polka dots. The former is the synthesis, the latter is the paradox.
This principle is not a new perspective of the modern age used as an easy way out for hard philosophical dilemmas. It is, on the contrary, an aged method invoked even by the greatest minds to ever walk the earth. Plato and Aristotle, for example, conceived of the relationship of ideas and forms; Augustine’s speech and action; and Aquinas’ being and becoming. The greatest example of the embodiment of a paradox, however, is Jesus’ divinity and humanity. Of him, Augustine writes,
Christ Jesus, Himself man, is the true Mediator, for, inasmuch as He took the ‘form of a slave,’ He became the ‘Mediator between God and men.’ In His character as God, He receives sacrifices in union with the Father, with whom He is one God; yet He chose, in His character as a slave, to be Himself the Sacrifice rather than to receive it, lest any one (sic) might take occasion to think that sacrifice could be rendered to a creature. Thus it is that He both the Priest who offers and the Oblation that is offered.
Logos-Centrism and the Binaries
The centrality of the logos is essential in considering the paradoxes of the ancients. The logos represents the Philosopher’s conception of the Absolute. It is commonly associated with reason, mind, power, wisdom, essence, idea, form, virtue, and deity. It is the root and central foundation of all the binaries that are associated with the paradox. It is the “originary source – pure, undefiled – center of everything.” The binaries are essential to the logos and the logos is essential to the binaries. Though the binaries are absolutely true in themselves, their proximity to the logos determines which of the two takes precedence over the other. Here are some examples:
|
Further |
|
|
Form |
Image |
|
Soul |
Body |
|
Speech |
Act |
|
Theory |
Practice |
|
Being |
Becoming |
|
Essence |
Existence |
|
Conscious |
Unconscious |
|
Rational |
Emotional |
|
Eternal |
Temporal |
|
Canonical |
Non-Canonical |
|
Apollonian |
Dionysian |
|
Spirit |
Matter |
A balance must be kept between the binaries though one takes precedence over the other. The binary nearer to the logos should be emphasized more but not to the extreme, in the same way, the further binary should not be neglected as to be ineffectual. The reversal of the binaries, the over emphasis of one, and the neglect of the other are three pitfalls to be avoided, especially in a Christian worldview. Liberalism, for example, reverses the order of spirit and matter; it results to a pragmatic system which cancels out the metaphysical. Legalism, on the other hand, is the fruit of the overemphasis of Spirit over matter and the neglect of the matter. The balance between the binaries is essential in the formation of the worldview.
Conclusion
Evangelical Theology has generally lost the value of the Absolute Truth and the Paradoxical Thinking. The discarding of these two essential facets of Christianity, has led to the demise of Orthodox Christianity. It has paved the way to the emergence of the modern and the post-modern Church and has led Christian Theology beyond the line of despair.
The centrality of the Absolute Logos is important in most worldviews but with Christianity it is quintessential. John 1 presents Jesus as the logos. He is the personification of the unfathomable entity that has been obscure to the Ancients. He is the “image of the invisible God” and the foundation of the Church. To remove, therefore, the Absolute in Christianity is tantamount to the removal of Christ thereof, and the misrepresentation of truth is the misrepresentation of Christ. Indeed, genuine Christianity necessitates genuine Christian thinking.
David F. Wells, No Place for Truth or Whatever Happened to Evangelical Theology? (Grand Rapids: Eerdman’s Publishing, 1993), 46.
Thomas Jefferson, “Declaration of Independence,” The Charters Of Freedom, http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html. (accessed October 15, 2008).
Schaeffer, Francis A, The Francis A. Schaeffer Trilogy: Three Essential Books in One Volume, The God Who is There (Wheaton: Crossway, 1990), 5.
Chesterton, Gilbert Keith, Orthodoxy, ed. Craig M. Kibler (North Carolina: Reformation Press, 2002), 146.
Os Guinness, Dining with the Devil: The Mega Church Movement Flirts With Modernity (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993), 11.
Darwin, Charles, Darwin’s Origin of Species: A Condensed Version of the First Edition of 1859, ed. R.W Sheldon (Victoria: Trafford, 2004), 195.
paradox. Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/paradox (accessed: October 20, 2008).
Cicero, On Duties, Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought, ed. Geuss, Raymond and Quentin Skinner (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1991), 27.
See: Augustine, The City of God, trans. Gerald G. Walsh Grace Monahan Honan Daniel J., Demetrius B. Zema (New York: Doubleday, 1958).
See: Aquinas, Thomas, A Shorter Summa: The Essential Philosophical Passages of St. Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologica, ed. Peter Kreeft (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1993).
Virtual Virtue, the Techno-Savvy Church, and the High-Tech Heart
Why is it that even though modern technologies are everywhere easing the work load it seems like everybody has become much busier? This is a question everyone in the 21st century should ask themselves. The rise of modern innovations has made it so that man’s life would be as comfortable as possible. There are modern tools for every imaginable work, but there is still an insatiable appetite in the hearts of men that hinders them from rest. Thus, even with all these advances, they find themselves more exhausted, stressed, and weary than ever. This woeful predicament is caused by a flaw in the modernist worldview: for real satisfaction does not come from the accumulation of material treasures but from a realization of wretchedness and a dire, desperate need for God’s intervention. This paper will examine how modern civilization arrived in this predicament with a specific focus on the attitude of the church towards it. In the end concluding that, as Pascal wrote, “It is then perfectly possible to know God but not our own wretchedness, or our own wretchedness but not God; but it is not possible to know Christ without knowing both God and our wretchedness alike.”
The Global Subdivision
Modern day technological innovations have lifted human life into heights beyond human imagination. New developments in the sphere of telecommunications, computer science, and in both industrial and medical engineering have made the world a more convenient place to live in. The rise of these modern innovations has made the human world, in the words of Thomas Friedman, “flat” – one big global subdivision. “Globalization” is term used by cyber analysts to refer to this phenomenon, personally however, the term “flat” seems to be a more appropriate term to use. Modern man has successfully torn down the walls which divide nations through three successive epochs in World History.
The first part takes place roughly in between the 1400’s and the 1800’s marked by globalizing countries. The main agenda in this era is getting one’s own country known globally. This era is known for the explorations and the conquests of Columbus and the other explorers; for the scientific revolution spearheaded by Copernicus, Galileo, and Newton; and for the spark of the industrial revolution. Nationalism plays a big part in the expansion of the countries. The national pride of each of the countries was largely determined by the magnitude and the number of its territories. Colonialism and slavery became a symbol of power and political might for most European countries while the inventions of the Industrial revolution became a symbol of development and cultural supremacy. To have a sense of pride in this era, one has to be a part of a global nation.
The second part involves the rise of capitalism in the 19th century and the invention of cyber space in the 20th century. Although plagued by two World Wars and the Great Depression, this era from the late 1800’s to the year 2000, has shrunk and flattened the world even further. The dynamic force behind this global innovation was the establishment of multinational companies. Because of the effect of the industrial revolution and a series of revolutions, the manipulation of wealth by the aristocrats was broken. High demands of goods caused a high demand of jobs which in turn led to the prosperity of some workers and the establishment of the middle class. This era saw the rise of multinational companies and franchises and because of the major developments in the fields of telecommunications and transportation.
The first half of this era is marked by falling transportation costs as a result of the invention of the steam-engine, the railroad, and some primitive version of cars. The second half is marked by falling telecommunications costs through the invention of the telephone, the personal computer, satellites, and a primitive version of the World Wide Web. These developments created a paradigm shift from nationalism to capitalism and corporationalism. People became more concerned about having their companies known worldwide, thus the rise of global companies like McDonalds, Coca-cola, and Microsoft. To have sense of pride in this era, one has to be connected to a global company.
The third phase of this three step progression takes place from the year 2000 to the present day. The colossal developments in technology in the second phase were enhanced and exploited even further in this era. The founding of the internet, in particular, has opened new horizons of possibility for every individual. At this time the individual was allowed to “become the author of his or her own content in digital form.” Every technology in this era has been personalized and it became possible for every individual to have a world of his own. In this era, each individual is a corporation of his own. A businessman can sit in one of the Starbucks franchises in Texas, sip coffee, turn on a MacBook and finish a transaction with another person sitting in a park in Kuala Lumpur.
This era introduced individuals to the global platform. Through the internet, any person can have access to anyone in the planet regardless of space and time. This paved the way to a new plethora of opportunities for companies but more significantly for every individual. To have a sense of pride in this era one has to be a global person.
These three phases has broken down the walls that divide humans, creating a neighborhood of multiple ethnicities through a global link. This fact is epitomized by an article in the Herald Tribune entitled “Want Fries With Outsourcing?” about a McDonald’s restaurant near Cape Girardeau, Missouri which is outsourcing its drive-through orders to Colorado.
Cheap, quick and reliable telecommunications lines let the order takers in Colorado Springs converse with customers in Missouri, take an electronic snapshot of them, display their order on a screen to make sure it is right, then forward the order and the photo to the restaurant kitchen. The photo is destroyed as soon as the order is completed, Bigari said. People picking up their burgers never know that their order traverses two states and bounces back before they can even start driving to the pickup window.
Today, through modern technologies, boundaries have been torn down and new possibilities were opened for man’s exploration.
Virtual Virtue
Technology has forever changed man’s way of life. Modern gadgets made it possible for the modern man to increase his productivity and efficiency, yet in so doing, it also pave the way for a paradigm shift to occur with regards to the values that govern his life. Individualism, development, and efficiency have become the social norm and the effects of these are catastrophic. A large percentage of people are trapped in a room illuminated by artificial lights, filled with artificial air, and surrounded by myriads of command buttons. Their days are spent in front of screens of different sorts, projecting images of their friends and love ones’ faces. They speak but do not communicate, they have ideas but never knowledge nor wisdom, and they have acquaintances but have no relationships. They are content to be in this room full of nothing and have no idea of the wonders of the world beyond.
The man’s reaction to the convenience of modern technology has forever altered his definition of virtue. Virtue today is defined as productivity, innovation, efficiency, and development replacing the ancient virtues of truthfulness, intimacy, excellence, love, justice, and honesty. Quentin Schultze, about the modern virtues writes: “Information technology are not just tools but also value-laden techniques that we rely on increasingly to organize and understand nearly every aspect of our lives.” In itself, technology is amoral, but the people’s reaction of distraction and isolation causes the demise of morality.
Distraction
It is an irony, technology is supposed to make human life simple and people today with all the conveniences offered by modern innovations seems to have a shortage of time, as if twenty-four hours a day is not enough. Just when it would be expected that life would be simpler, it became far more complicated. Just when life would be expected to be peaceful, it has become more chaotic. The reason for this peculiar situation according to Pascal is, “that he does not know how to stay quietly in his room.” The modern man needs distraction because his life is too much of a bore. He, to alleviate the void that is left by idleness creates avenues to divert his attention. He does this to spare himself from any serious contemplation that will reveal or remind him of his emptiness. Thus, simply stated, modern man chooses to live a busy and chaotic life rather than a peaceful life.
Technology is a big avenue for distraction. It is like a tool box filled with tools to create distraction. The internet is the door to cyberspace, a magical world where a person can be whoever he wants to be. It is a gateway to escape the “real” world and to traverse an imaginary land where anything is possible. Virtues of moderation, discernment, and humility are irrelevant in this virtual world, for all that matters here is informationalism, “a non-discerning, vacuous faith in the collection and dissemination of information as a route to social progress and personal happiness”. Everything herein operates on instinct and feelings. Here, one can find all the distraction he needs to have momentary happiness.
Isolation
Isolation is one of man’s responses to modern technology. What is meant here by “isolation” is not that a person would lock himself in a room, all alone without any communication with those outside, although it is a part of that which is alluded to. Rather, it refers to a newer form of isolation: being in a crowd, conversing with other people but simultaneously being detached from personal communication and involvement. Modern isolation is the deprivation of intimacy.
Advances in telecommunications have made it possible for anyone to be connected with people anywhere and at anytime. In fact, a phone provider advertisement says, “It’s time to say goodbye to goodbyes”. The issue today is not communication. The issue is: through the availability of modern telecommunications, intimacy has been substituted by synthetic communication. Communication today has lost that personal touch that is the avenue for a meaningful conversation. In fact, talking is gradually being outdated. It seems today, people would rather type than talk, thus, the popularity of text messaging and email.
This isolation is not merely social in nature but it extends to the modern’s outlook of the world. Most people are locked in rooms not only away from outside communication but also, away from the world itself. Most people are satisfied to look at the world through screens, satisfied by second hand information from people who themselves see life through screens. The television, the internet, and the cellular phone have replaced personal exploration, travel, experimentation, and observation. The modern man is contented with mere information and not with personal knowledge. Schultze writes, “we have become impersonal observers of the world rather than intimate participants in the world,” further, “the glut of information at our disposal creates the illusion that we understand our predicament.”
These two reactions are but the tip of the iceberg concerning the universe of deadly responses to modern technology which for the expense of space in this paper were not written. Suffice it to say, these two are the most obvious and the most vicious of all the reactions to technology. These have rendered the olden virtues, which are the foundations of human life, insignificant in the eyes of the majority of the human population. It has abolished the necessity for a healthy personal introspection and a vigorous social interaction. It will thus be unsurprising if twenty or thirty years from now, human existence too will be considered primitive and it too would be subject to technological innovations. It will not be a surprise if robots take the place of man in the near future.
The Techno-Savvy Church
The church is the only institution available to modern man that is able to confront this dire predicament, and yet, instead of addressing this cultural paradigm shift, the church has become in itself techno-savvy. Instead of addressing ills of this technological nuisance, most churches have learned to thrive on the situation, riding the wave of the times rather than redirecting the deceptive cultural flow. The church has long been enslaved by the Hegelian principle of dialectic, where there is an anti-thesis to every thesis which necessitates a synthesis. This methodology has long been the church’s standard means of addressing culture, Jose Miguez Bonino, a proponent of liberation theology which is a synthesis of Marxism and Christianity writes:
It is my thesis that, as Christians, confronted by the inhuman condition of existence prevailing in the continent, they have tried to make their Christian faith historically relevant, they have been increasingly compelled to seek an analysis and historical programme (sic) for their Christian obedience. At this point, the dynamics of the historical process, both in its objective conditions and its theoretical development have led them, though the failure of several remedial and reformist alternatives, to discover the unsubstitutable relevance of Marxism.
Such is too, the case between the Church and Postmodernism, David Ray Griffin in God and Religion in the Postmodern World: Essays in Postmodern Theology, writes, “In this context, a reassertion of the authority of the scriptures (and perhaps tradition) appeared to be the only way to maintain ‘a faith worth having.’ A significant theology seemed to require a conservative method. Postmodern theology shows that this is no longer true.”
Most of the churches today have fallen into either of two demonic pitfalls: liberalism and legalism. The former emphasizes culture over doctrine while the latter emphasizes duty over virtue. Liberals have adapted the church into culture that a distinction cannot be made between the two. They soften the gospel message and seek to turn it into a motivational speech. The concept of sin as rebellion towards the justice of God is deemed irrelevant to cater to the individualism of modernists. The legalists, on the other hand, have emphasized duty over virtue to the point that their form of Christianity ceases to address the culture. Virtue and duty are almost synonymous, yet there is a slight distinction of the two. Josef Pieper differentiates the two in this manner:
With a doctrine of commandements or duties, however, there is always the danger of arbitrarily drawing up a list of requirements and losing sight of the human person who “ought” to do this or that. The doctrine of virtue on the other hand, has things to say about this human person; it speaks both of the kind of being which is his when he enters the world, as a consequence of his createdness, and the kind of being he ought to strive toward and attain to – by being prudent, just, brave, and temperate. The doctrine of virtue, that is, is one form of the doctrine of obligation; but one by nature free of regimentation and restriction. On the contrary, its aim is to clear a trail, to open a way.
The main problem with legalism is that it over emphasizes the duties to the point that the person following the commandments fail to find the reason for such an adherence. Legalism neglects the value of the person, belittling the essence of the virtuous life, which is the chief aim of the movement.
The degradation of churches has caused a great confusion among regular church goers. The downfall has furnished a dichotomized outlook in most of the congregations. A great number of people have succumbed to Screwtape’s (a demonic character in C.S. Lewis’ Screwtape Letters) thought, “Your man has been accustomed, ever since he was a boy, to have a dozen incompatible philosophies dancing about together inside his head. He doesn’t think of doctrines as primarily ‘true’ or ‘false’, but as ‘academic’ or ‘practical’, ‘conventional’ or ‘ruthless’.” They live in two different worlds at the same time. They live in what Peter Kreeft refers to as the world of values which is set upon the world of behavior.
Our feeling life, our inner world of “values” (no longer real goods), is set on the outer world of behavior, a world governed by social “mores” (no longer morals). “Values” are like thoughts, like ghosts, undulating blobs of psychic energy. “Mores” are like brute facts, like machines, ways people do in fact behave, not ways they ought to. We are like ghosts in machines.
Their values are divorced from their behavior and their practice. Virtue has thus become for them an ideal rather than an everyday standard.
Conclusion
Charles Malik in his keynote speech in the dedication of the Billy Graham Center in Wheaton College said, “responsible Christians face two tasks – saving the soul and saving the mind.” Salvation is an instantaneous event which takes place upon conversion. Sanctification, however, is an ongoing process which involves the “renewing of the mind (Rom. 12:2).” Modernism and dependence on technology is solely based on human pride, an age long attitude and lifestyle. The pursuit of ease, comfort, and convenience are not new quests, but rather, an institutionalized illness extending from the fall of man. Its consequences, together with it, are not new. Adam and Eve were distracted by the allure of the fruit of the forbidden tree and by the cunning and craftiness of Satan’s charming offer of convenience, the offer to be “like God, knowing good and evil (Gen. 3:5).” After the fall, they too isolated themselves. They hid from the face of God and at that moment they lost intimacy with God, the world around them, and with themselves.
Ease is pleasurable is not a necessity for survival and is in itself a vain pursuit. First, ease and convenience were never a factor in human survival in history. The great and women in the past never achieved their status through ease and convenience. They all had to endure conflict, wars, affliction, and technological limitations but their resiliency, perseverance, and their determination through such situations are the ingredients to their greatness. Secondly, the pursuit for comfort is a vain attempt because man is never satisfied. It should be observed that presently, with all the conveniences of technology, modern man have become busier than ever. This is because man has an insatiable boredom. It is indeed true that “we want to complexify our lives, we don’t have to, we want to.”
Distraction and isolation are not the solutions for the wretchedness of man. It is in no way helpful in improving the human predicament. The truth and the realization of this truth is the only means to alleviate man’s wretchedness. The modern man should stop burying his head in the sand like an ostrich in fear of a tiger, but rather he should hold his head up and see the predicament as it really is, a dire hopeless situation. When he has done this he would be able to accept the reality that, “It is then perfectly possible to know God but not our own wretchedness, or our own wretchedness but not God; but it is not possible to know Christ without knowing both God and our wretchedness alike.” It is only at this point that he would cease to try, repent of his sins, and turn to the one who is the way, the truth, and the life, and in deep reverence accept Him as savior and Lord. Then and only then will he find the eternal rest that he has long been searching for.
Pascal, Blaise, Christianity for Modern Pagans: Pascal’s Pensees, ed. Peter Kreeft (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1993), 284.
Thomas L. Friedman, The World is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-First Century (New York: Farar, Straus and Giroux, 2006).
Pascal, Blaise, Christianity for Modern Pagans: Pascal’s Pensees, ed. Peter Kreeft (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1993), 172.
Jose Miguez Bonino, Christians and Marxists: the Mutual Challenge of Revolution (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1976), 19.
Josef Peiper, The Four Cardinal Virtues: Prudence, Justice, Fortitude, Temperance (Notre Dame: Notre Dame, 1966), xii.
