Continuing discussion of why Evangelicalism is weak culturally in America today. In the last post I identified the conflict model, anti-intellectualism, and populism. Now we look at the last two character traits of Evangelicalism that contribute to this weakness and offer conclusions as to why this matters for Evangelicals.
Consumerism - This trait is to some extent the result of populism. With the over-arching emphasis being on numbers, churches have focused on policies that bring in the masses. Evangelical churches tend to emphasize the portion of the great commission in which Christ calls his Church to spread the gospel to all people, but ignores altogether Christ's command for us to make disciples. The result is that marketing takes precedence over spiritual formation. Church becomes a business and the gospel a product. This trend is not lost on non-believers. I heard one skeptic say recently that the Church is merely another business that is out to get people's money by peddling the greatest product possible; hope for life after death. The irony is that the shallow consumerism of Evangelicalism is one of the biggest turn-offs to potential converts. The mega-church pastor is an oft-ridiculed stereotype in modern American culture (for my critique of the stereotypical suburban mega-church pastors, see my blog post from last October: http://spicey-spiceitup.blogspot.com/2010/10/charlatans-and-gospel.html). Though I do not have solid data to back this up, I observe that most of the large "successful" churches drawn not from the mass 0f unbelievers, but from other churches. In any case, the result is that American Evangelicalism has become materialistic (of which the health and wealth gospel is an outstanding example) in order to draw in 'giving units.' It has primarily become about feeling good, managing your money, or merely being entertained. The end result is a Christianity that is utterly worldly. Paul in his epistle to the Colossians tells his audience to focus entirely the things above, where Christ is seated. Paul does not mean by this that Christians are to be other-worldly and Platonic. Instead, it means that we are to desire higher and eternal things such as beauty, love, peace, joy, hope, and the knowledge of God. These are manifested in God's creation and so we should enjoy them through the creation; I do not want to pose a spiritual/material dualism. But modern Evangelicalism has a knack for watering down these heavenly things into base substitutes. Love becomes sentimentality, peace and hope becomes feel-goodery, and joy becomes mere entertainment and amusement. The most immediate danger is that this is idolatry; unlike the heavenly blessings, which point to Christ, these things point only to the worldly. More to our purpose, they make Evangelicalism culturally weak, because it means that Evangelicalism focuses exclusively on the base rather than high. Is it any wonder that film, art, literature and music so dominated by secularism? Secularism dominates these areas when Christianity produces kitsch sentimentalism manifested in praise songs, Christian romance novels, and simplistic and shallow Christian movies. Ideas like existentialism and relativism are so influential today because they are manifested in art, literature, and film rather than in poor mimics of Hollywood blockbusters or chick flicks. Thomas Kinkade art and sentimental Christian novels are poor substitutes for the Sistine Chapel and Paradise Lost. The overall issue is that Evangelicalism becomes something that stoops down to the most base and vile elements of consumerism, instead of something that seeks to lift people up to the heavenly realms. Christianity teaches that humanity has a nature that was created good, which desires partake in higher things such as the beautiful, the good, and the true. But because of sin this original nature has been corrupted into a sinful nature in which people now desire the pleasurable, the self-serving, and the useful; yet the original nature has not been completely eradicated. It seems obvious which nature Christian outreach out to tickle.
Disunity - The fragmentation of American Evangelicalism is one of the biggest reasons why Christianity is so impotent. The Catholic Church puts Protestants to shame for this very reason. Catholics, despite being outnumbered by Protestants 2:1, run the most effective Christian education system (the sole elite Christian research university, Notre Dame, is Catholic), have a far more effective missions program, and give more to charities that Protestants. The reason is that Catholics are united, which means that they can pool their resources effective coordinate their use. Evangelicals are haplessly disunited and, apart from politics, disorganized. Indeed, Evangelicals spend almost as much time wrangling with each other as they do with non-Christian sub-cultures. My own tradition, the Reformed, is fragmented into dozens of small denominations which all strongly resist any unification because of minute differences. Disunity is preserved by a lack of Christian charity and a sense of pride often thinly veiled as "doctrinal purity." Like broader American culture, Evangelicals cannot cooperate towards a common good while agreeing to disagree in love. My guess is that God will chide us all far more strongly for failing to love another and effectively carrying out the Church's mission than He will for us communing with those who baptize infants, disbelieve in predestination, think that communion is merely a memorial meal, or practice a Presbyterian polity rather than an episcopal one. Of course nondenominational churches deserve a fair share of the blame as well. It is difficult to maintain any kind of cooperation between churches when anyone can break away and go its own way. As a result, any attempt to actually forge any kind of pan-Evangelical organization that actually has power to coordinate the resources and activities of Evangelical churches will always remain elusive. As a result, Evangelicals will be hapless in the effort do things such as create a good system of Christian schools, fund a top-tier orthodox Protestant research university, effectively pool resources for charities, or effectively organize missions both at home and abroad. The advantage of cooperation over going solo was not lost on the Preacher in Ecclesiastes: "Two are better tan one, because they have a good reward for their toil. For if the fall, one will life up his fellow. . .And though a man may prevail against one who is alone, two will withstand him - a threefold cord is not quickly broken (Ecclesiastes 4:9, 10a, 12).
The question naturally arises, of course, why should any of this matter? Why should Christians care about being culturally influential? Some Evangelicals no doubt think that it is best to remain 'pure' from the taint that might result from an attempt to redeem secular culture. Why not let the Spirit do its work? True, the Holy Spirit is the one who truly guides the Church towards the consummation and brings unbelievers to faith. But the Holy Spirit operates through the Church to achieve these ends. The building up the Church does not occur magically, but by the Spirit through the normal spiritual, psychological, and sociological phenomenon that constitute the original creation. Conversion and Church growth do not confound a limited psychological or sociological explanation. To put it simply, it is through the cultural influence of the Church that the Holy Spirit operates. If the Holy Spirit did otherwise, we might as well argue that Christians ought not try to spread the gospel (after all, we shouldn't risk tainting ourselves by interacting with nonbelievers) but instead leave it up to the Spirit to spontaneously convert people. The operation of the Holy Spirit does not make evangelism or a strong Church any less necessary. However, another objection might be levelled, this one from the other side of the aisle, so to speak. Isn't all this talk about cultural power simply a return to the mistakes of Christendom? First, let me say that when I speak of cultural power, I do not mean the cultural establishment of Christianity. I don't suggest that Christians try to imperiously coerce nonbelievers through commanding positions on the cultural heights. I mean something much more organic. I mean that Christians ought to have a strong presence in culturally powerful institutions so that the Christian vision is heard and taken seriously. Christianity is rejected today by secular society, not because it has been understood and refuted, but because it can be ridiculed with ease. Secondly, the goal of cultural strength should not be the Christianization of the artistic, educational, or political institutions. Instead the goal should be the building up of the Church. Christians are called not to conquer the City of the World but to build the City of God. Included in the City of God are those who are the Church's representatives in the artistic, educational, and governmental institutions. If there is to be a Christianization of society, it must only be done by the conversion of society into the Church, not by dominating cultural institutions so that society has a Christian facade. Ultimately our goal should be a cultural strong Church that is able to spread the gosepl of Christ, disciple its members, and effectively cultivate the the good, the beautiful, and the true.
Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments
Monday, October 17, 2011
Saturday, October 15, 2011
The Weakness of American Evangelicalism - Part I
I contend that American evangelicalism is culturally weak. This means that in our increasingly pluralistic culture, Evangelicalism lacks cultural influence. I argue that this is due to six specific traits of American Evangelicalism. If the cultural weakness of Evangelicalism is to be overcome, Evangelicals need to reflect on how the American Church can be transformed into a stronger institution. Despite many improvements, the Evangelical Church at large requires sweeping reform. Nothing less than another reformation will do.
The fact of the matter is that American Evangelicalism was practically culturally irrelevant in the second half of the twentieth century. True, Evangelicals did gain sweeping political influence through the Religious Right. However, politics is only one part of culture, and ultimately not a very influential one. The modern state is increasingly run by bureaucrats rather than elected officials. One only needs ponder the lack of results, despite thirty years of political mobilization on the part of the Religious Right. Evangelicals might achieve victory for a time through politics, but ultimately the state is driven by far more influential aspects of culture. The Religious Right has ultimately done more harm for Christianity than good because it has spread resentment amongst non-Christians (and even some Christians). It has awakened fears that Christians desire a return to the Protestant Establishment in the United States. The reality is that law (politics) does not create cultural change, but rather is the product of cultural change. Law is the expression of the will of the cultural elite. The most powerful cultural centers in modern America are academia, elite media outlets, law schools/public policy schools, the arts, book publishers, literature, museums, etc. It is strength or representation in these areas that determine the strength of a particular cultural movement. And it is in precisely these areas that Evangelicals are the most impotent. This means that the influence of American Christians on contemporary culture is likewise impotent. The reasons for this are complex and I don't fully understand them myself. However, to a great extent they are a result of six traits of Evangelicalism.
Conflict Model - Evangelicals, by and large, don't view the non-Christian culture as a lot of poor souls that need to be won, but as enemy combatants that need to be conquered and subdued. It is telling that Christ commanded his apostles to make disciple (i.e. teach and instruct) the nations, not scream at them or dominate them politically. The conflict model emphasizes antithesis over relevance. It forgets that non-Christian culture contains much good and needs to be discipled , not obliterated and replaced by a "pure" Christian culture. In short, it forgets the common ground between Christians and non-Christians by virtue of the fact that both are still made in the image of God. The inability to connect with the good in non-Christian culture ultimately means that Evangelicals lack all relevance. The early Church fathers were especially good at finding the common ground between Christians and non-Christians, and the early Church was culturally stronger because of it.
Anti-Intellectualism - Most Evangelicals are suspicious (to say the least) of intellectual life. They view the modern university (not without warrant) as anti-Christian. I think that the university is only implicitly anti-Christian - i.e. it educates in a decidedly secular fashion, since most in academia aren't Christians - not explicitly so. However, the continued dearth of religious perspective in academia is the fault of Evangelicals to a great degree. Rather than formulate a comprehensive plan for real educational and intellectual cultivation, Evangelicals have simply retreated from academic life. Academia, at best, is something to be survived. What educational programs Evangelicals do produce are deeply reactionary and typically unscholarly. They don't teach Evangelicals how to think but what to think, and what Evangelicals are told to think (e.g. creation "science") often borders on intellectual dishonesty. Exposure to non-Christian views are avoided, and where there is interaction, Evangelicals are not taught how to critically examine the ideas, but to wave them away as liberal or secular hogwash. They are taught to reject wholesale "secular learning" rather than redeem what is good in it. All of this belies a deep lack of confidence on the part of Evangelicals in the intellectual credentials of Christianity. Additionally, despite the recent prominence of many orthodox Christians in intellectual life (George Marsden, Alvin Platinga, Nicholas Wolterstorff, Francis Collins, Mark Noll), Evangelicals are typically unsupportive of Christian intellectuals. In part this is because Evangelicals are suspicious of such Christian academics. They are often viewed as "tainted" by their academic pursuits, especially when they hold views (such as those pertaining to evolution) that most Evangelicals refuse to even entertain. While Evangelicals dump millions of dollars into politics, church programs, and popular Christian organizations, institutions that foster Christian learning are left underfunded or ignored all together. The sole research center funded at my undergraduate institution was a political one; the Center for Vision and Values. When reasons were given for giving generously to my Alma Mater, the rich experience of cultivating robust Christian learning was typically not one of them. Even the speaker at my baccalaureate couldn't help mixing Christianity with politics and civil religion. In short, Christian learning is often viewed as a means to an ends (e.g. training the leaders of tomorrow), not an end in itself. This means that Evangelicals are uninterested in the scholarly content of Christian learning, only its utility in the culture war. This devastating for Christian culture. Christians are right to affirm that academia is a critical component of the spread of secular culture, but the lament of Evangelicals to this effect is matched only by their impotence in doing anything to counteract it with a model of true Christian learning.
Populism - Evangelical neglect of culturally important institutions is typically justified by an erroneous understanding of culture. Evangelicals typically think that mass evangelism is the way to win cultural influence. What is ironic is that the rise of the mass evangelism movement runs parallel to the collapse of a Christian impact on culture. This is because cultural influence is not gained by numbers. Christianity, even if reduced to the 40% or so of those who we might say are true practicing Christians (as opposed to nominal - "in name only" - Christians), is still the largest single world view in the country. Yet its share in the culture economy is vastly below this. This is because it not quantity that matters but quality. Think, for instance, of the influence that people of Jewish ethnicity have due to the fact that they are typically well-educated and well-cultured (about 1.7% of the nation is Jewish, but one-third of the supreme court is Jewish). Jews, faced with extreme prejudice through their history in the Western world, had to form a strong culture or else be subsumed by the larger culture. Evangelicalism is typified by a misguided attempt to dominate popular culture. The problem is that pop culture is merely a vulgarized and commercialized interpretation of high culture. If we look at summer blockbusters, pop music, or television sit coms, we see commercial imitations of high culture trends such as existentialism, pragmatism, hedonism, and relativism. Evangelicals are puzzled why, despite the mass production of Christian movies, books, and praise music, Christianity lacks the ability to influence the lives of the average American. Evangelical churches routinely fail to even influence the lives of many of their congregants. The reason is that the Church cannot exist merely as a pop culture institution, because such institutions are inherently weak without high culture support. The average American falls for the ills of American pop culture, such as movies, songs, and TV shows that glorify sexual promiscuity and individualism because they have been prompted to do so through public schools, the media, secular colleges, film, and books published by secular-minded publishing companies. These areas of high culture continually preach human autonomy and moral relativism regarding traditional mores. Without such high culture support, the attempt to be "relevant" in pop culture makes Christianity look kitsch, sentimental, and weird to non-Christians and even many Christians. Often Evangelicalism makes Christianity look shallow and superficial due to its overemphasis on the popular. When this perception is exported through mass evangelism (think of those tracks you always find at the mall), the result can be that more harm has been done than good.
The fact of the matter is that American Evangelicalism was practically culturally irrelevant in the second half of the twentieth century. True, Evangelicals did gain sweeping political influence through the Religious Right. However, politics is only one part of culture, and ultimately not a very influential one. The modern state is increasingly run by bureaucrats rather than elected officials. One only needs ponder the lack of results, despite thirty years of political mobilization on the part of the Religious Right. Evangelicals might achieve victory for a time through politics, but ultimately the state is driven by far more influential aspects of culture. The Religious Right has ultimately done more harm for Christianity than good because it has spread resentment amongst non-Christians (and even some Christians). It has awakened fears that Christians desire a return to the Protestant Establishment in the United States. The reality is that law (politics) does not create cultural change, but rather is the product of cultural change. Law is the expression of the will of the cultural elite. The most powerful cultural centers in modern America are academia, elite media outlets, law schools/public policy schools, the arts, book publishers, literature, museums, etc. It is strength or representation in these areas that determine the strength of a particular cultural movement. And it is in precisely these areas that Evangelicals are the most impotent. This means that the influence of American Christians on contemporary culture is likewise impotent. The reasons for this are complex and I don't fully understand them myself. However, to a great extent they are a result of six traits of Evangelicalism.
Conflict Model - Evangelicals, by and large, don't view the non-Christian culture as a lot of poor souls that need to be won, but as enemy combatants that need to be conquered and subdued. It is telling that Christ commanded his apostles to make disciple (i.e. teach and instruct) the nations, not scream at them or dominate them politically. The conflict model emphasizes antithesis over relevance. It forgets that non-Christian culture contains much good and needs to be discipled , not obliterated and replaced by a "pure" Christian culture. In short, it forgets the common ground between Christians and non-Christians by virtue of the fact that both are still made in the image of God. The inability to connect with the good in non-Christian culture ultimately means that Evangelicals lack all relevance. The early Church fathers were especially good at finding the common ground between Christians and non-Christians, and the early Church was culturally stronger because of it.
Anti-Intellectualism - Most Evangelicals are suspicious (to say the least) of intellectual life. They view the modern university (not without warrant) as anti-Christian. I think that the university is only implicitly anti-Christian - i.e. it educates in a decidedly secular fashion, since most in academia aren't Christians - not explicitly so. However, the continued dearth of religious perspective in academia is the fault of Evangelicals to a great degree. Rather than formulate a comprehensive plan for real educational and intellectual cultivation, Evangelicals have simply retreated from academic life. Academia, at best, is something to be survived. What educational programs Evangelicals do produce are deeply reactionary and typically unscholarly. They don't teach Evangelicals how to think but what to think, and what Evangelicals are told to think (e.g. creation "science") often borders on intellectual dishonesty. Exposure to non-Christian views are avoided, and where there is interaction, Evangelicals are not taught how to critically examine the ideas, but to wave them away as liberal or secular hogwash. They are taught to reject wholesale "secular learning" rather than redeem what is good in it. All of this belies a deep lack of confidence on the part of Evangelicals in the intellectual credentials of Christianity. Additionally, despite the recent prominence of many orthodox Christians in intellectual life (George Marsden, Alvin Platinga, Nicholas Wolterstorff, Francis Collins, Mark Noll), Evangelicals are typically unsupportive of Christian intellectuals. In part this is because Evangelicals are suspicious of such Christian academics. They are often viewed as "tainted" by their academic pursuits, especially when they hold views (such as those pertaining to evolution) that most Evangelicals refuse to even entertain. While Evangelicals dump millions of dollars into politics, church programs, and popular Christian organizations, institutions that foster Christian learning are left underfunded or ignored all together. The sole research center funded at my undergraduate institution was a political one; the Center for Vision and Values. When reasons were given for giving generously to my Alma Mater, the rich experience of cultivating robust Christian learning was typically not one of them. Even the speaker at my baccalaureate couldn't help mixing Christianity with politics and civil religion. In short, Christian learning is often viewed as a means to an ends (e.g. training the leaders of tomorrow), not an end in itself. This means that Evangelicals are uninterested in the scholarly content of Christian learning, only its utility in the culture war. This devastating for Christian culture. Christians are right to affirm that academia is a critical component of the spread of secular culture, but the lament of Evangelicals to this effect is matched only by their impotence in doing anything to counteract it with a model of true Christian learning.
Populism - Evangelical neglect of culturally important institutions is typically justified by an erroneous understanding of culture. Evangelicals typically think that mass evangelism is the way to win cultural influence. What is ironic is that the rise of the mass evangelism movement runs parallel to the collapse of a Christian impact on culture. This is because cultural influence is not gained by numbers. Christianity, even if reduced to the 40% or so of those who we might say are true practicing Christians (as opposed to nominal - "in name only" - Christians), is still the largest single world view in the country. Yet its share in the culture economy is vastly below this. This is because it not quantity that matters but quality. Think, for instance, of the influence that people of Jewish ethnicity have due to the fact that they are typically well-educated and well-cultured (about 1.7% of the nation is Jewish, but one-third of the supreme court is Jewish). Jews, faced with extreme prejudice through their history in the Western world, had to form a strong culture or else be subsumed by the larger culture. Evangelicalism is typified by a misguided attempt to dominate popular culture. The problem is that pop culture is merely a vulgarized and commercialized interpretation of high culture. If we look at summer blockbusters, pop music, or television sit coms, we see commercial imitations of high culture trends such as existentialism, pragmatism, hedonism, and relativism. Evangelicals are puzzled why, despite the mass production of Christian movies, books, and praise music, Christianity lacks the ability to influence the lives of the average American. Evangelical churches routinely fail to even influence the lives of many of their congregants. The reason is that the Church cannot exist merely as a pop culture institution, because such institutions are inherently weak without high culture support. The average American falls for the ills of American pop culture, such as movies, songs, and TV shows that glorify sexual promiscuity and individualism because they have been prompted to do so through public schools, the media, secular colleges, film, and books published by secular-minded publishing companies. These areas of high culture continually preach human autonomy and moral relativism regarding traditional mores. Without such high culture support, the attempt to be "relevant" in pop culture makes Christianity look kitsch, sentimental, and weird to non-Christians and even many Christians. Often Evangelicalism makes Christianity look shallow and superficial due to its overemphasis on the popular. When this perception is exported through mass evangelism (think of those tracks you always find at the mall), the result can be that more harm has been done than good.
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
Joy, Cynicism, and the Selfish Heart
It would seem to be common sense that a selfish person should want nothing more than happiness and joy for himself. After all, joy appears to be something that all people want. From classical Greece to the present, men have sought the summum bonum, the greatest good or the good life. Naturally, we should think that someone who desires their own good above all others would be terribly greedy for this state. However, lately I have explored the idea that selfishness and joy are utter opposites. You cannot have one without the other. I do not want to confuse what I call "joy" with what is commonly referred to as "happiness." I have known very many selfish people who are completely happy. I have also seen people who are utterly sad and yet possess joy. Happiness comes when we have have our worldly desires and needs met. Joy, however, is something far deeper and existential.
The great theologian St. Augustine spoke of the blessed life, an ideal existence characterized by "rest" - by which Augustine meant something like the Jewish concept of shalom. It is a state of utter peace, tranquility, and love. The concept of the Trinity - diversity in unity -was especially important to Augustine and other early church writers. Here was the idea that love is something inherent in God, as God is community of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, characterized by perichoresis - or the divine dance of love. Rest, then, is a state of eternal peace whereby the strivings of a weary mankind are ended by an unending communion of love. I will use Augustine's concept of the "blessed life" for what I mean by joy; I believe that Augustine had singular insight into the inner life. Indeed, I have found that if you want really profound insight into the human soul, you must read someone who wrote at least 200 years ago. If there is one thing that characterizes modern man it is his utter inability to think deeply about anything. This is because we are in a constant state of distraction; we are everywhere preoccupied. Our culture encourages or even coerces us into unending business. The cultivate the inner life requires meditation and a will to plumb the murky depths of your own soul. Augustine found by looking deep into his soul he found two things; a irresistible longing for joy and an insatiable selfishness.
My first month at seminary has encouraged me to likewise plumb the depths of my soul. Since my life has been put under the scrutiny of the unbearable light of God's perfection in my first month here, I have come to grasp my own selfishness and cynicism. I have also come to realize that what I call joy has been the thing that I have been seeking my whole life, ever since I was a child. Perhaps in those peaceful days of childhood, when we scarcely notice time or the cares of this world and we are ever surrounded by our parents' love, we come the closest to comprehending true joy. But even here it is only a shadow of the real blessed life. Indeed, a return to an infantile state, full of stubbornness and ignorance, would be a step back away from true joy. Joy is not a golden age to be reclaimed, but a far off country we are on a pilgrimage towards. And childhood, like the beginning of a great journey, is full of its own exuberance, optimism, and lack of cares, but only because it is naive and does not fully comprehend that great trek that lies before it. It is not closer to real joy, it merely comprehends it easier because it has not yet been subjected to the hardships and doubts of our expedition, which cause us to lose sight of our destination. I have progressed steadily onward in this journey, ever looking for a place to end my pilgrimage. In every stop along the pathway of life I have looked for that ultimate rest, but have only ever found temporary lodgings. And yet, ever growing within me is sense that true rest, blessedness, and joy lies "further up and further in."
And here comes the second characteristic of my life. For if children are joyous, they are also wilful and at times selfish. If from childhood I progressed in my journey towards joy, I also progressed in my own selfishness. We are so often fooled by our cultivation of good manners that we really think we are becoming humbler; in reality we are simply becoming better at hiding our self-centeredness. And here I return to my original point; selfishness and joy are utter foes. Selfishness inevitably breeds cynicism, whereas only humility and love can cultivate true joy. Joy is not something that we take into ourselves, but rather it is something that surrender to or cast ourselves upon. We are absorbed into it, not it into us. It comes only when we surrender ourselves utterly God and our neighbor, when we mimic the perichoresis or divine dance of God. Yet selfishness is opposed to any surrendering of itself. Instead, it produces cynicism, the ultimate conclusion of human pride. Cynicism places the whole world under judgment for not meeting our standards and expectations. It is hostile to and critical of all things to avoid the chance of ever being taken in by one of them. To praise something else, to profess loyalty to something else, to love something else is abhorrent to it, for this entails surrendering a bit of itself to something that is not itself. The cynic fears to elevate something foreign to himself, for if he did this, his claims to autonomous detachment and judgment would be suspended.
Therefore, selfishness despises joy. It can only embrace joy by submitting to joy, and it clings to its cynical refusal to surrender even one bit of oneself to a foreign power. Of late I have come to realize this characteristic in me. It was startling presented to me when I came across to foreign students, who appear to have fortunately thus far avoided contracting the lamentable American characteristic of being utterly unsatisfied in the midst of plenty. When I politely asked how they were, they responded that they were truly excellent - and what is more they sincerely meant it. I realized that I lacked their joy. Whereas they approached life avoid of selfishness and cynicism, I was full of it. And here is the great battle that lies within us. It comprises the ultimate plotline of Augustine's Confessions. We long for joy, we pray "Thou has created us for Thyself, and our hearts are not at rest until they rest in thee." And yet we refuse to disabuse ourselves of our selfish greed, because we do not want to rest in anything but ourselves. We desire the blessed life and yet we look for it everywhere except where we can truly find it. We turn to the material things of this world to satiate, even for a moment, our innate longings. Yet in the end we are like the alcoholic who intoxicates himself as a means to escape. In the end, what is required is to be imitators of Christ. We must lose our lives if we are to find them. We must press onward in our journey for the land that heartily welcomes us to become subjects in the kingdom of eternal joy.
The great theologian St. Augustine spoke of the blessed life, an ideal existence characterized by "rest" - by which Augustine meant something like the Jewish concept of shalom. It is a state of utter peace, tranquility, and love. The concept of the Trinity - diversity in unity -was especially important to Augustine and other early church writers. Here was the idea that love is something inherent in God, as God is community of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, characterized by perichoresis - or the divine dance of love. Rest, then, is a state of eternal peace whereby the strivings of a weary mankind are ended by an unending communion of love. I will use Augustine's concept of the "blessed life" for what I mean by joy; I believe that Augustine had singular insight into the inner life. Indeed, I have found that if you want really profound insight into the human soul, you must read someone who wrote at least 200 years ago. If there is one thing that characterizes modern man it is his utter inability to think deeply about anything. This is because we are in a constant state of distraction; we are everywhere preoccupied. Our culture encourages or even coerces us into unending business. The cultivate the inner life requires meditation and a will to plumb the murky depths of your own soul. Augustine found by looking deep into his soul he found two things; a irresistible longing for joy and an insatiable selfishness.
My first month at seminary has encouraged me to likewise plumb the depths of my soul. Since my life has been put under the scrutiny of the unbearable light of God's perfection in my first month here, I have come to grasp my own selfishness and cynicism. I have also come to realize that what I call joy has been the thing that I have been seeking my whole life, ever since I was a child. Perhaps in those peaceful days of childhood, when we scarcely notice time or the cares of this world and we are ever surrounded by our parents' love, we come the closest to comprehending true joy. But even here it is only a shadow of the real blessed life. Indeed, a return to an infantile state, full of stubbornness and ignorance, would be a step back away from true joy. Joy is not a golden age to be reclaimed, but a far off country we are on a pilgrimage towards. And childhood, like the beginning of a great journey, is full of its own exuberance, optimism, and lack of cares, but only because it is naive and does not fully comprehend that great trek that lies before it. It is not closer to real joy, it merely comprehends it easier because it has not yet been subjected to the hardships and doubts of our expedition, which cause us to lose sight of our destination. I have progressed steadily onward in this journey, ever looking for a place to end my pilgrimage. In every stop along the pathway of life I have looked for that ultimate rest, but have only ever found temporary lodgings. And yet, ever growing within me is sense that true rest, blessedness, and joy lies "further up and further in."
And here comes the second characteristic of my life. For if children are joyous, they are also wilful and at times selfish. If from childhood I progressed in my journey towards joy, I also progressed in my own selfishness. We are so often fooled by our cultivation of good manners that we really think we are becoming humbler; in reality we are simply becoming better at hiding our self-centeredness. And here I return to my original point; selfishness and joy are utter foes. Selfishness inevitably breeds cynicism, whereas only humility and love can cultivate true joy. Joy is not something that we take into ourselves, but rather it is something that surrender to or cast ourselves upon. We are absorbed into it, not it into us. It comes only when we surrender ourselves utterly God and our neighbor, when we mimic the perichoresis or divine dance of God. Yet selfishness is opposed to any surrendering of itself. Instead, it produces cynicism, the ultimate conclusion of human pride. Cynicism places the whole world under judgment for not meeting our standards and expectations. It is hostile to and critical of all things to avoid the chance of ever being taken in by one of them. To praise something else, to profess loyalty to something else, to love something else is abhorrent to it, for this entails surrendering a bit of itself to something that is not itself. The cynic fears to elevate something foreign to himself, for if he did this, his claims to autonomous detachment and judgment would be suspended.
Therefore, selfishness despises joy. It can only embrace joy by submitting to joy, and it clings to its cynical refusal to surrender even one bit of oneself to a foreign power. Of late I have come to realize this characteristic in me. It was startling presented to me when I came across to foreign students, who appear to have fortunately thus far avoided contracting the lamentable American characteristic of being utterly unsatisfied in the midst of plenty. When I politely asked how they were, they responded that they were truly excellent - and what is more they sincerely meant it. I realized that I lacked their joy. Whereas they approached life avoid of selfishness and cynicism, I was full of it. And here is the great battle that lies within us. It comprises the ultimate plotline of Augustine's Confessions. We long for joy, we pray "Thou has created us for Thyself, and our hearts are not at rest until they rest in thee." And yet we refuse to disabuse ourselves of our selfish greed, because we do not want to rest in anything but ourselves. We desire the blessed life and yet we look for it everywhere except where we can truly find it. We turn to the material things of this world to satiate, even for a moment, our innate longings. Yet in the end we are like the alcoholic who intoxicates himself as a means to escape. In the end, what is required is to be imitators of Christ. We must lose our lives if we are to find them. We must press onward in our journey for the land that heartily welcomes us to become subjects in the kingdom of eternal joy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)