On May 30, 8:19=A0pm, Bob Crowley <bobcrow...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
[snip]
> In the end there's just God and us, really, however much we may wish
> to avoid Him. =A0The issue is one of choice - for God or against Him.
Were this true, one would expect that God would make
the "for" choice somewhat easier -- i.e., indicate more
plainly that He is for us (if that be the case).
> In the end it's the only ultimate choice. =A0Everytthing else - career,
> family, house, finance - is filling in the gaps, and they won't go
> with us anyway. =A0So we're faced with one ultimate choice. =A0Which way
> do we go.
I'll go with you this far: We may have some
choice as to what sort of character we
exhibit, whether we perform what would
be considered good actions from good
motivations. I'm not sure this is 100%
true, however, because I do not know if
I have the capability of truly loving anyone
or anything. I have some capacity to be
interested in ideas and activities, and to
form cathexis with and affection for people
(else I would not have grieved my mother's
death, as I still do some). But the Bible
(I John 4:19) says that we love because
God first loves us; and if we don't experience
the love of God (as I have not), it's not easy,
perhaps not possible, to love.
>=A0In the end we'll face God anyway, and in so far as He has a
> plan, we must fit into the overall design, one way or the other. =A0The
> nail may not like being hammered on the head, but whether it likes it
> or not, it's going into the house the architect designed. =A0The
> difference is that we have a choice - the nail doesn't.
As I think I implied in my previous article,
"our choice" and "God's plan" cannot coexist.
Either we're nails or we're free humans; I see
no middle ground.
> How God goes about these things is, I admit, not easy to accept. =A0But
> His grace can only be poured into us if we're empty. =A0And with our
> strong egos, we don't like being empty. =A0So we'll fill up the
> spiritual space with anything - career, drugs, ***, and most of all,
> "I did it my way".
That last may not be entirely bad. I have
recently reread the classic _Escape From
Freedom_ by Erich Fromm, and recognized
a good deal of the malformation of character
he describes as present in my own character.
(Christians should read that book to understand
how much of the same malformation of character
got incor****ated into some of the basic ideas
of Protestantism -- notably Calvin's merciless
God Who condemns some people for no reason
at all -- and thus, centuries later, enabled a
movement veritably founded on such bad
character, Nazism.) But anyway, to do it
my way -- to act freely rather than in fearful
obedience -- may be the only way to health
and happiness for me.
> > At least you're honest about this. =A0But if it's
> > the same God in both cases, why should we
> > expect any better treatment in the next life
> > than in this one? =A0What difference would the
> > mere loss of our physical bodies make to
> > God's attitude toward us?
>
> I suppose we take it on trust.
And on what basis is this trust founded?
What has God done to prove Himself
trustworthy?
OK, I'll grant that _Escape From Freedom_
mentions the concept of the "magic helper" --
some entity outside oneself whom one
expects to solve all one's problems if one
properly propitiates that entity; and I'll
grant that I treated God as a "magic helper"
and was greatly disappointed when He
didn't act as one. But the mere fact of
God's not being a magic helper does not
imply that other ideas about God are true,
or that He even exists.
> And when I hear what might be called the "prosperity
> doctrines" of some modern preachers, I wonder if they're serving God
> or Mammon.
Here I'm with you. Indeed, when I hear some
preachers spouting political doctrines that one
might rather expect from the Chamber of Commerce,
I wonder the same.
[from previous articles by Crowley and me:]
> > > In the end however the decision to desire or not desire God's will
in
> > > our lives is a matter of our own wills. =3D3DA0When we're in a dry
gul=
ly, =3D
> to
> > > desire His will may be all we've got left.
I'll admit the possibility of desiring truth and
of desiring the seemingly impossible dream
of being a good person, being able to stand
to be oneself. But there's no way I can any
more desire God, nor (for reasons explained
above) do I think it's healthful for me to think
in terms of desiring His will. That's masochistic.
> > The only reason I've seen you give for desiring
> > God's will is the threat of hell, as indicated by
> > your father's words in his remarkable appearance
> > to you just before he died. =A0That doesn't really
> > give us anything to *desire*, just to *avoid*.
>
> Actually it wasn't just before he died. =A0He was dead. =A0During the
> exchange I actually asked "What is this - a dream or something?" to
> which he replied, with a look of bemusement, "No, it's not a dream. =A0I
> died tonight."
Sorry, my mistake; my memory was imperfect.
> I admit that the desire to "avoid" may be part of a person's
> conversion motivation. =A0But as one becomes more deeply embedded in the
> Christian life, the fear of judgment tends to recede.
I'm not so sure that's true. If one has tried hard
for many years to be good, then discovers that one
has actually, in one's heart of hearts, been exceedingly
wicked, the fear of judgment and the begging for a
forgiveness that doesn't come in any perceptible way
are quite in the foreground.
[short snip]
> Christianity is not "cheap grace". =A0It costs. =A0Christ told us to
"pick=
> up your cross and follow Me". =A0Human nature wants to get rid of the
> cross. =A0But since Christ is God, He won't allow us to.
>
> I'll grant you the problem of suffering is not an easy one to solve.
As I wrote in my reply to Matthew Johnson (that
reply is in Google's archive if it's already aged
out of your machine), this whole paradigm makes
God look like "both an idiot and a sadist. An idiot,
because a) He created for no reason that makes
any sense (He doesn't need anything, as He never
wearies of saying), b) He uses the slowest, most
inefficient method conceivable to 'refine' us, rather
than creating us right the first time. A sadist,
because He also selects a very painful method
of 'refining'."
> There might be more to God's granting the devil permission that we
> commonly think. =A0I suppose you've read the story of Pope Pope Leo
> XIII=3D92s vision and the resulting prayer to St. Michael viz.
Never heard of it till now. But then, I've never been
a Catholic.
> [snip] The devil boasted that he could destroy the
> Church, if he were granted 75 years to carry out his plan (or 100
> years, according to some accounts). =A0The devil also asked permission
> for =A0'greater influence over those who will give themselves to my
> service.' =A0To the devil's requests, Our Lord re****tedly replied: 'you
> will be given the time and the power.'"
>
> One wonders what sort of game God and the devil are playing. =A0I think
> you're well aware of the events that took place over the next 100
> years. [snip]
I don't know if the violence you described is really
the principal work whereby the devil (supposing
*he* exists) aimed to make good on his boast.
In fact you alluded to his real work earlier in your
comment about prosperity preachers. Back in
1983 Os Guinness came out with a book which
ought to be considered a modern classic, _The
Gravedigger File_; it is in the genre of C.S. Lewis's
_The Screwtape Letters_, i.e. memos from the
Other Side, but in this case having to do with
subverting the whole church rather than one
individual. The key sentence in the book
(printed entirely in italics, as I recall) is:
"Christianity created the modern world;
the modern world, in turn, has undermined
Christianity; Christianity has become its
own gravedigger." Worldliness, not violence,
is what is really destroying the church.
> Where do you think Adolf Hitler got his power from?
Doesn't Romans 13 indicate (not in these
exact words) that *all* powers are appointed
by God? That doesn't say just the good ones.
According to Romans 13, the (informally)
sainted Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who plotted to
assassinate Hitler, was actually drawing
damnation to himself by that act. According
to Romans 13, the American Revolutionaries
(whom so many conservative Churchians revere,
especially the Revolutionaries who happened
to be religious) were equally damned for their
actions in throwing off the rule of George III.
According to Romans 13, the divine right of
kings, dictators, bad presidents, etc. is
alive and well. And therefore neither
Hitler nor Stalin nor anyone else (I wanted
to write "Bush", but I have to admit he's not
nearly so bad as those two) can be blamed
if it was God's will that they come to power
and stay in it for as long as they did. Even
your account of Pope Leo's vision has God
saying to the devil, "You will be given the
time and the power" -- i.e., so ultimately
the whole messy history of the past few
generations is still God's responsibility.
So how can He be a God Who is Love?
-- Jeffrey J. Sargent
|
