Purposiveness

What is the meaning of life?

(I certainly tackle easy questions on here)

I would guess that many Western Christians would give an answer similar to mine: to figure out God's purpose or will for my life, and to do that.

Because, really, making money is definitely not a motivation enough to keep me working, cooking, cleaning, praying, relating with others, etc. Nor is gaining power, or bettering my reputation, getting beautiful and more things, or preserving my life (think of animals who spend their lives gathering, nesting, hunting, sleeping solely to survive). These may help some people wake up every morning, but I would probably see right through these: meaningless, all meaningless.

So I spend my life wondering, worrying, and biting my nails, trying to discover my purpose. What, oh what, is God's will for my life?!! If I could, I would go to mountaintops and to the middle of a blazing desert and yell What-Is-My-Purpose? And it may echo, eerily, and a still silence would follow.

I realized today that a tenet of Western Religious thought is that very response. A Christian worldview teaches that the meaning of life comes from understanding and following God's purpose of will. I have been programmed to think this. It sounds slightly dystopian to write it that way, but it's true.

Perhaps that is not the right answer -what if it is wrong or at the very least, misleading.

This theory/worldview is called "purpose theory" in the philosophical discipline. It has a name. And there are many theists, atheists, deists, and others who both support and dispute the validity of purpose theory. Thaddeus Metz, Religious Studies professor at The University of Johannesburg in South Africa wrote an article titled, "Could God's Purpose Be the Source of Life's Meaning?" The article articulates purpose theory, addresses many of the arguments against it (reductio), and presents his own perspective, that is reduced (simply) to this:

If God is all knowing, immutable, atemporal (outside of the limits of space and time), simple (unchanging -always the same forever and ever), immortal, I AM (the beginning and the end), then it is inconsistent for him to reductively interact with human life in terms of temporal (time and place) goals and purposiveness.

Hmmm. So, if finding God's purpose is not the meaning of my life, then what is? And how do we relate and interact meaningfully with an atemporal, immutable God?

He suggests that the meaning of life comes from worship God and interacting with him in this life.

I thought about John 5:19

So Jesus explained, "I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself. He does only what he sees the Father doing. Whatever the Father does, the Son also does.

Something became apparent that I never before considered. He did not say, "I do what God has purposed/willed for me to do." He says, "only what he sees the father doing."

If time does not exist to God, and he sees the beginning and the end, then a very crude example is that God is like the tall person in a crowd who can see, because he is a head above the rest, where to go. The rest of the little people run and walk in circles, bumping into one another attempting to find their way, only able to see inches or a foot in front of them. If, however, they line up behind the tall person and follow him, they are much better served.

It isn't a great illustration, but in our temporal humanity we worry about today, tomorrow, and the next day -next year, after college, when we're married, etc. but basing the meaning of life on those, and expecting God to order those and speak the events of our tiny lives into perfect meaningful order, perhaps it is more effective to stop doing, busying, worrying, or planning -release control (what??? -not a simple task for my Type A self!) and figure out what He is doing, then join in.

For those who miss the beauty of subtlety, let me explain. Recall the question at the beginning, what motivates you to get up in the morning? I replied, "next to nothing," because everything (money, power, etc.) is meaningless. So instead I look to God and begin my day by asking, "What on earth am I here for? Why did I wake up today?" And then I either chug along with one foot in front of the other doing tasks, or I try to envision myself fulfilling some great purpose that will leave a lasting legacy on this earth. (I sincerely hope I am the only one to wrestle with this existential problem every morning, but if not, you are in good company). That is an illustration of "purpose theory."

In contrast, I wake up to realize that I can do nothing to bring my life meaning or purpose, so I climb back under the covers and stay in bed all day. Wrong! Instead, I look at the world around me as alive, active, interactive, creative, busy...with the work of God all around me orchestrating every detail meaningfully --with the scape of eternity in his view. And I join in what he is doing.

How do I know what he is doing? I listen. To the Holy Spirit speaking in me, to the bible, others who believe in God. And I act. To join with God might at times look very silly, counter productive, or not make logical sense. It may bring persecution, pain, or poverty. But, by doing what He is doing, living to imitate Jesus' example of joining with the Father, that my friends is the meaning of life.

"softened only by the light of a single candle"

Here is a small little something, before I go to bed. I would read more, but I've already read my quota for the day, 3 chapters of one single book, --I could read another book, but I want to read this book, so to compensate (and not violate my guidelines), I'm going to blog about a tiny thing it made me wonder.

The book is David Benner's Opening to God: Lectio Divina and Life as Prayer. At the start of chapter 4, he writes an engaging scenario:

"It is 3:20am and I am sitting in church. I am surrounded by darkness that is softened only by the light of a single candle on the altar. In front of me are forty or forty-five monks in white cowls---their hoods up, covering their heads and hiding their faces. They sit in silence, stillness, and expectancy. Together we wait for the beginning of vigils and the first reading of the day from God's word. I am a guest of Saint Joseph's Abbey in Spencer, Massachusetts, here for a retreat. Unlike these monks with whom I share these days of prayerful attentiveness, I do not regularly get up in the middle of the night so I can hear God's word."

What I noted has nothing to do with his point, or really anything in this scene except the time. 3:20 am.

I've struggled with insomnia since I was a child. I blame my vivid imagination --my parents used to tell me to imagine dream homes or to make up stories, thinking that this would make me tired, Ha!

I used to be haunted, it seemed, by the Winchester clock that would ding and chime every quarter hour so that I knew it was 11:00, 12:00, 1:00, 1:15, 1:30... Tip-toed trips down stairs were a regularity for me, so that I could hold the swinging, ticking pendulum and make it stop telling me how much sleep I was missing in the early hours of the morning.

My sleep has definitely gotten better, but I still have moments of wakefulness at night and simply knowing that I'm not asleep when I should be sends a tremor of anxiety.

Now, I know that I have company in the wee hours. When I spend that time praying, silently or softly humming worship songs, reading my bible with tea, and repeating verses to distract my worried mind, I guess I supposed that some people were awake: the night shift and bad guys. It just isn't normal or right to be awake then.

Good grief, I make myself sick by all of my attempts to please them. Whomever they happen to be. Those people, who say that I should be sleeping at 3:20: schools, employers, clocks, schedules, (I was going to write "the sun," but in Alaska when the sun ins't present, people still move and busy themselves), etc.

It is regular and expected for the monastic life to be awake at 3:20 am, and this hour is filled with infinite intention and purpose.

I am realizing that in the smallest things I am a conformist through and through, and always out to criticize myself because he or she or they do something differently.

Last night I told Patrick that I probably don't have a desire for children because evolution knows that I should die off --survival of the fittest and all of that Darwin stuff I learned in school. Runts don't reproduce. He started to laugh, "Maybe you should see a counselor and talk to them about your insecurity, since you think that every bit of you is destined, rightly so -according to you, for extinction."

So it was a serious-turned-funny moment, but the point in all of this is that I like the aha moments, when I realize that it's okay to be me, because other people are being themselves, and we aren't all one single person doing and being what and who we ought to do and be.

Savvy?

"I would prefer not to" -Bartleby

I'm leaving today for a very long trip, so I don't have the energy to feel and process much at the moment in the way of philosophy. So, I'll leave you with a funny excerpt from Søren's diary. How's that?

"I can't bother to do anything whatsoever; I can't bother to walk --the effort is too great; I can't bother to lie down, for either I would lie too long, and I can't bother to do that, or I would get up at once, and I can't bother to do that either--I can't bother to go horseback-riding --the exercise is too strenuous for my apathy; all I can bother to do is ride in a carriage, comfortably, and, while being evenly rocked, let a multitude of objects glide past me, lingering over each lovely bit of scenery only to savor my languor--my thoughts and notions are as sterile as a eunuch's heat--in vain I seek something that might enliven me--not even the pithy language of the Middle Ages can overcome the void that pervades my being. Now I realize in truth what is meant by the saying about Christ's words, that they are life and spirit--in brief: I can't bother to write what I have just written, and I can't bother to blot it out."

Packing and going on vacation has such an affect of lulling apathy. SK mimics (in many more words), my favorite literary character, Bartleby: "I would prefer not to." Speaking of Melville, I hope to read Moby Dick this week.

Kierkegaard: Sensing Through Faith pt. 8

"He wills to trasform human beings, and he wills it out of love."

I have committed to these posts, but there are some passages, like the one today that I stare at bitterly for an hour or two before mustering the discipline to write a post.

Read the following lines:

"The Christian must suffer," "must endure sufferings that he consequently can avoid simply by refraining from becoming a Christian."

The title of this series "Sensing Through Faith" becomes important here because my rational, reason-oriented mind familiar with Christendom of 2,000 years of human-invention, quite insistently opposes these lines. Christianity promises blessing, eternal life, provision (ask and it shall be given to you), divine guidance, hope, peace, love, joy...

If you skipped that segment, scroll back up and READ IT!

Reflect on your "cozy, human god." Am I allowed to give assignments? Take time to reflect on your God (I'm pausing to do this).

Here's what I wrote quickly: Safe -this is the first word that cozy, God, and father evoked. Safe from pain, evil, isolation, abandonment, cold, scary things, sickness, fear, change, and the unknown. My cozy, human god should keep me safe from these things, and he should treat me gently and lovingly. Harsh or absolute commands that require sacrifice can be avoided if I am obedient and willing because then he won't punish me.

Haha. Perhaps I have allowed my humanity to color God -just a bit!

" --for God presumably does not know man; his demands are too extravagant, so there have to be pastors to haggle and bargain . . . if [Christianity] has relaxed to what is human, to what has arisen in the human heart, then people naturally think well of it."

The Christianity that I profess and enact is clearly the product of my human heart; God as reflected in the bible, and through Jesus' contemporaneity is peripheral to my interpretation.

"All this is untruth, is a distortion of Christianity."

As I mentioned above, Christianity must be understood through faith because human reason interprets the promises of scripture through our human hearts, which causes a distortion of the truth.

My sister sent me a song, recently, written by John Newton, the man who also penned "Amazing Grace." Listen and read the lyrics to "I Asked the Lord."

I asked the Lord that I might grow,

In faith and love and every grace,

Might more of His salvation know,

And seek more earnestly His face.

It was He who taught me thus to pray,

And He I trust has answered prayer.

But it has been in such a way,

As almost drove me to despair.

I hoped that in some favored hour,

At once He’d answer my request.

And by His love’s constraining power,

Subdue my sins and give me rest.

Instead of this, He made me feel,

The hidden evils of my heart.

And let the angry powers of hell,

Assault my soul in every part.

Yes, more with His own hand,

He seemed, Intent to aggravate my woe.

Crossed all the fair designs I schemed,

Blasted my gourds, and laid me low.

“Lord, why is this?” I trembling cried.

Will You pursue Your worm to death?”

“This is the way” the Lord replied,

“I answer prayer for grace and strength.”

“These inward trials I employ,

From self, and pride, to set you free;

And break your schemes of earthly joy,

That you may find thy all in Me.”

Despair, for Newton, is the result of answered prayer. The weight of sin in his heart, and the failure of his own plans results in freedom from self and pride, and results in dependence upon God only. This does not make "sense," -through faith one surrenders, trusts, and depends, releasing control, questions, and anger, and submits to the reality of a God who wills to transform human beings out of love.

You cannot think this truth into being, it has to be faithfully enacted. I pray for strength for those of you whose inward trials, burdened spirits, and longing hearts are devastated at this time in your lives; you are in good company.

Kierkegaard: Sensing Through Faith pt. 7

Read the introduction and part 1 of this series here. Also, part 2, part 3, part 4, part 5, part 6.

Image from dipity.com

I will use Kierkegaard moderately in the post, yet still profoundly. I'm moved by his small comments on compassion, because they pair with humility in a very personal way for me.

Compassion necessitates division or a gap between one being and another; the relationship is often one person in a position that is greater, the other lesser (socially, materially, physically, etc.). In order for compassion to be enacted, movement must occur to lessen the gap -one being moves toward the other, the direction being down from greatness into poverty. That is a fancy way of saying that a person sitting outside of In-N-Out with a tray full of french fries notices the tiny black bird with his head cocked sideways, his beady eyes pleading, and tosses him a single fry. That is compassion as we understand it, from a human perspective.

Kierkegaard writes that "Human compassion is always merely to a certain degree" because compassion can never full optimize or the act would cease to be compassion. Let me see if I can illustrate:

A middle-class young woman has compassion for victims of human trafficking. She donates financially to an organization that provides transitional housing, and twice a month she volunteers a few hours at the shelter. She prays for the girls, reads books about the cause, attends conferences on this topic, and brings her bag of gently used clothes at least once per year for the girls to go through.

Why is this identified as compassion? Because from her position as a middle-class young woman she is giving, descending, donating, sacrificing, and sharing with those whose needs place them in a position to receive her compassion.

Alternately, if the young woman left her snug apartment and lived with the girls on the street where they came from, in motel rooms and make-shift group homes, gave away all of her clothing except a functional pair of clothes and shoes, and a worn jacket, ceased to read her books for information and instead came to know the reality of trafficking from stories that the women told her, she would, as Kierkegaard said, become "quite literally one" with the women in appearance, poverty, abasement, reputation, and more. If this occurred, and she did not flaunt her origin, her actions would no longer be identified as compassion because she would be acting out of a position that was the same as the women she was caring for. The movement would be side to side, rather than down. And even this does not quite illustrate the reality of divine compassion that moves the one-being-helped above oneself.

As an ideology, compassion and humility is touching, but to see it, to move in this reality every day! negates the act of compassion or humility for the one involved; It normalizes the loftiness of the act. For this reason, "Human compassion [and humility] is always merely to a certain degree." We need to preserve for ourselves the distinction of greatness, of service, and of humility, which is achieved by and through division.

True compassion, divine compassion, is not evident, because one becomes "quite literally one with the most wretched . . . this is too much for people." This is far greater, "too lofty for [humans] to bear seeing in daily life."

I was challenged by this passage as I received the second of two rejections yesterday from graduate programs.

The rejections clearly highlighted my underlying desires, and the glaring, difficult-to-acknowledge pride that has emulsified pure, good intentions with weak longings for distinction. I'm going to share something that I wrote because it illustrates the point, although it's humiliating to a degree, but the feeling of being humbled is also freeing.

I want to be something special… to be recognized, better than, remarkable, beautiful, spoken about.

I want to be good at something, and I mean really good at something, so good that I can tell others and they will respect my opinion as an expert. And I don’t mean at scrubbing toilets, changing diapers, reading to children, cooking dinner, and folding matching socks together in neatly kept drawers. I want to be an expert of intellect, rhetoric, analysis, philosophy, theology. Yes, I pretty much want to tell people what to think in such a way that they are speechless, because I hate confrontation and I don’t care to argue. I would be so smart that there would be nothing but silence. (Smile). Yes. This is what I want, to revel in expertise. Stubborn, self-righteous, entitled, pessimistic, cynical, prideful, brooding, elevated, snide, vain. This is who I am. This is what my heart really looks like. And these credentials make me want to be a hero, an expert, intellectual savior of a sheep-like, lost, and hurting flock. Oh, I would abuse them with my good intentions, my criticism, expectations, and belittling, and then I would abandon them, because I would think them hopeless, pathetic creatures, beneath me and my awesome help.

As I grow to push back against these desires, I hope that my definition of compassion for others and humility looks less like our human image of compassion, that still preserves some distinction for one's-self. I hope instead for divine compassion and humility that is not able to be identified because it is achieved by a position beside, and even more hoped-for, beneath those who I teach, befriend, write to, talk with, love, and serve.

Jesus' example of compassion and humility forever changed human ideas that necessitate "a degree" of action. His example fully optimized compassion, so that it ceased to exist. The gap has been closed as the lofty becomes the servant, and the one being served is lifted up.

Ensure justice: Standing Together to End Exploitation of Girls

I'm interrupting my Kierkegaard posts to bring awareness to an issue that I spent the weekend learning about and discussing with community members, juvenile court judges and their justice teams from Las Vegas and Orange County, non-profit organizations, law enforcement, and a woman who survived her adolescent years of sexual exploitation. The conference convened to promote awareness of the issue of juvenile prostitution in the United States and to discuss methods of collaboration between government agencies, law enforcement, religious and secular non-profit organizations, and community members.

One of the presenters shared that the only way that underage prostitution does not occur in the U.S. is if one fails to look for it. And speaking from my own past motives, there are at least some Americans who would rather not know, or perhaps would choose to think that the girls have made poor choices to put themselves in harmful situations. If I knew, I thought, then I would be responsible to help, and it is a topic that frankly repulses me. I chose instead to think that it was a very slight problem in foreign countries, and even less so in America (if at all). One probation department representative shared that he also held this belief until he decided to investigate and found that in every city in California thousands of children are being trafficked each year. And it is even more of a problem in conservative cities and states whose citizens and elected officials refuse to investigate and acknowledge the exploitation of children and women in their areas due to the sex industry.

It is tempting to remain ambivalent about people and topics of which we aren't directly involved, or in which we are not emotionally invested. For some, empathy and compassion are mustered at once, but for others, I've learned that feelings run extremely deep, and acknowledging them elicits conviction, passion, and restlessness for action. For protection we keep a close guard on emotional attachment, but protective ambivalence prevents humans from acknowledging the reality faced by too many young girls in the U.S.

If you would like to hear the story of a real young woman, I urge you to watch this 20-minute documentary, Carissa. It's direct, but tame, not overly dramatized or intended to conjure emotion -it is simply one woman's story, shared to bring awareness of this issue and the young women in our communities whose lives are being broken and destroyed every day because of sexual exploitation.

Fault, victim, detention

Unless she was kidnapped, why would a young woman consent or submit to a pimp? Can't she just leave him, and if she doesn't, isn't she submitting herself to that lifestyle?

Young women, explained several of the speakers, need protection, food, and shelter. Further, they need to belong, to be accepted, and to be loved. Home for a large portion of adolescents has been abusive. Parental support, investment, love, and responsibility (even for basic provisional means of food and clothing) is not a part of the child's life -often from the time they were born. Runaway youth, abuse victims, angry, hurt, and traumatized youth run anywhere that someone speaks affirming words, as often older men will purr into their ears: I'm going to take care of you; I love you; you're beautiful; baby; we're a family... And although scared, the girl will nod her head, acquiesce to his strong, warm arm around her shoulder, and allow herself to belong.

Carissa Phelps described that after this moment the girl is trapped by invisible walls. Although we cannot see them, the young woman is walled in (if not literally and violently) by security and belonging. When given the option to leave she does not have anywhere else to go. The dark streets, the preying violence of drugs and the wandering hopelessness of nothing at 12 years old, and the threat that is manipulatively constructed in their minds that the police will "lock them up as prisoners, treat them as criminals," leaves her with no option but to say, "take me back." The adolescent brain is not able to discern her own well-being and analytically overcome the lies and manipulation designed to mentally trap her body into service.

A second wall is the law that often victimizes exploited children. There are exceptions, certain juvenile courts whose employees and housing facilities care for the well-being of these girls. Many, however, testified that the process after picking up and detaining a young woman consists of a detention sentence in juvenile hall, and then she is released back "home," or in some cases a court will send her to a rehabilitation facility that provides health care, education, psychological services and counseling, mentor relationships, and supportive peer collaboration in safe, remote locations.

One question that circulated during each presentation was the definition of a victim. Often social judgement and law blames and punishes the 12-17-year-old girls while the pimps and solicitors remain free to circulate streets. The controversy of this is dependent upon several factors: the girls are needed to testify against the pimp to prosecute him, which is difficult to coerce them to do given that in their minds he is larger than the legal system; many girls think little of themselves and are so stripped of dignity that they subject themselves to repeated abuse; a callous, warped sense of identity pervades that system in which the girls pride themselves on running from group homes, detention facilities, and foster homes; the state does not have funding or sufficient facilities to provide the support that these girls need to treat them as victims, so they are grouped with "delinquents" in detention centers and develop a callousness toward the legal system. There are many other concerns that face the courts and public offices, Child Wellfare, Social Services, victim advocates, and community response teams.

The issue is large, and growing, as awareness is increased. Though teams are working on collaboration, it takes a diligent effort to invest in girls and deconstruct what we perceive to understand as their reality, as warped and unconventional as it is for each girl.

Community involvement

Culture is the greatest barrier to overcome when reaching out and determining a personal role in this issue. It requires out-of-the-box thinking, many speakers continued to say.

As I look out at the students in the library today at Laguna I see girls lobbying their sexuality for belonging, attention and acceptance through their clothing, and their behavior. At the very base level, teens need love, care, support, encouragement, hope, investment, and to be known. Parents do not always provide this, and they should! Culture promotes certain images of beauty and female identity, and reinforces these through media, which enters homes through television, the computer, etc. It is drastic to remove the television or to place internet controls and time limits on the computer, but for some, this would be a radical stand to take within the home, and as an example in the community.

Further, parenting is perceived as caring for one's own biological children. Foster care and adoption, which moves children from abusive homes and uninvested foster homes, provides an opportunity to invest in girls who might otherwise grow up without the sense of belonging, acceptance, and love. Safe Families is an organization that partners with families willing to open their homes to children as foster parents without government support. The foster care system is only able to respond to 10% of the calls received, which are extreme abuse and neglect cases. Remaining children who have needs for food, clothing, shelter, and encouragement because parents are living below the poverty level, have lost their homes, or leave children unattended frequently, remain in unhealthy situations. Safe Families attempts to address and provide for the remaining 90% of children in need. The average age is 4.5 years old, and a large percentage are under 1; they generally stay for 45 days or less.

There is a great need for men to get involved. Only a few were present at the conference, and a majority were law enforcement officers or legal representatives who were speaking. It is difficult to understand this issue from a man's perspective, but I heard from some who cared A LOT! for the kids whom they serve. Patrick has shared before that his business meetings are punctuated by coarse stories and admission among men to very inappropriate solicitation and behavior! I urge him to say something rather than remain silent. Hopefully he will! Just being a voice can help a lot.

These are simple things. If parents talk with parents, teachers with students, men with men, women with women, and many of us with youth, that is a very basic commitment to live our lives investing preventative truth and love into the people around us.

I heard amazing stories of a church ministry that sends a group of three adults each week day to walk the 6 blocks around junior high and high schools in targeted areas to discourage the pimps from approaching loitering girls.

A family of four children fostered four siblings and eventually adopted them!

Several non-profits are springing up to be safe or transitional housing shelters for the courts to send girls rather than back to their homes.

There is a great need for educating students in targeted areas, and groups are brainstorming legislation.

Resources and writers are needed to write grants and work on data analysis and research on this topic.

Everything is useful to construct a concerned, aware, proactive environment to protect girls and end sexual exploitation.

"Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves; ensure justice for those being crushed. Yes, speak up for the poor and helpless, and see that they get justice" -Proverbs 31:8

Kierkegaard: Sensing Through Faith pt. 6

Read the introduction and part 1 of this series here. Also, part 2, part 3, part 4, part 5.

That raucous, unforgivable crowd -jeering, taunting, laughing, "He has helped others; now let him help himself." History and dramatization may have colored this moment incorrectly...

Whoever can stand at a crucifixion either has a motive, a relative being killed, or a morbid sense of pleasure, I would think. And I would imagine that those shouting callously, scoffingly would be few -the morbid enthusiasts, possibly drunk, drunk on wine or the power of hatred, bitterness, and injustice, not toward Jesus, but toward their own lives of sorrow and hopelessness.

It seems that the stronger current surging through the descending blackness, rolling in on the storm would have been hope.

"What was it that he once said?" they might have whispered. "That..." scratching a beard or shifting a baby from one hip to another, "that his time had not yet come."

In the space of a few silent moments, they would raise their eyes to his serene face, and barely breath out, "has it perhaps come now?"

The scene would perhaps have been "meaningless madness," as Kierkegaard describes, confusion, hope deferred. Those who most believed in him as the Messiah, but who understood the Messiah would come in glory, to overthrow Rome and save Israel from oppression, would they perhaps have felt a surge in their chests, a power in the silence, a drama in the elements that orchestrated THE MOMENT when he would reveal his glory to the entire world? Did they stand with a motive of expectation that he was the Messiah?

The madness in this hoped-for expectation was embodied in the cast of characters: A teacher, "miscarried genius who claims to be God," and his company of tax collectors, condemned characters, and lepers, "these are the authorities so competent to decide what truth is?!"

Would they also transform into mighty men, warriors, kings and princes from God? Because surely in their humanity, nothing could come of the least.

These men and disreputable women knew that they were the least, that Jesus was before them, dying, the man who sought them out and said, "follow me, you are good enough, and you are loved." If only by this affirmation they understood, through hazy, human understanding, that in Jesus they saw God, and they worshiped him.

And the final onlookers, those sagacious, religious, and sensible expressed pity.

Their pity was likely a justification to themselves when comparing their position to those around them. The drunken scoffers, hopeful, simple followers, and somber worshipers each expressed a degree of faith in either Jesus' guilt, his eminent glory, or his present unity with God. These wise men stood, unable to grasp Jesus' person in that moment; they observed what He did, avoiding why he did it, not broaching judgment of the moment or the person of Christ, which would likely have upset their theology, world-view, or respectability. So, they "paid their dues," a quick respect, the socially acceptable tribute, and smugly rested within themselves, "I am not that callous."

What does this moment embody in conflicting, contradictory scenes that history loves to remake, repeat, color and dramatize? The truth is, despite the anger, the hope, the worship, or the pity, Jesus died. The final hours of the cross were not profound, they were a failure. All observing and watching saw it end in death -there was not a trace of glory revealed, only confirmation to those who hoped, and those who worship, and those who pitied him, that he was indeed, a "miscarried genius who claimed to be God," and died. Only a few of those in attendance ever saw him again or heard a different ending to the story.

This ends the account of what can be known of Jesus. Everything beyond requires faith. While that may not be profound to most people it is infinitely helpful to heady, academic, literate people, whose every life and thought centers around what can be known, understood, thought, and explained. I have sought to know Jesus for as long as I can remember, and the most profound truth is that I cannot know any more than this.

All this world-historical to-do and arguments and proofs of the truth of Christianity must be discarded; the only proof there is, is faith . . . My development or any man's, proceeds like this: maybe he too starts out with some reasons, but they represent the lower plane. Then he makes a choice; under the weight of responsibility before God a conviction will be born in him by God's help. Now he has attained the positive. Henceforth he cannot defend his conviction or prove it by reasons; that would be a contradiction in terms, since reasons belong to the lower plane. . . There is only one proof of the truth of Christianity: the inner proof . . . it is not the reasons that motivate belief in the Son of God, but the other way around, belief in the Son of God constitutes the evidence. It is the very motion of the infinite and it cannot be otherwise. -The Diary of Søren Kierkegaard (Rhode Citadel Press)

This conclusion sounds very relativistic, some would say post-modern, especially when compared with liturgical faith. However, this is why I have such an affinity for S.K.; his faith journey, paired with his reasoning and heady philosophical perception of the world make reason(s) a barrier, even a stumbling block in Christianity. But when I stare at the end of reason, the rope dangling from my hand I am finally free to believe, and for "belief in the Son of God to become the evidence," not "the reasons [to] motivate belief in the Son of God."

There is more to come! I may take a break this weekend, but check back on Monday for the implications of Jesus for Christianity.

Kierkegaard: Sensing Through Faith pt. 5

Read the introduction and part 1 of this series here. Also, part 2, part 3, part 4.

The Scoffer

Personas, contemporary with Jesus, are intriguing. Some people are much better at getting into a text than others, essentially role-playing. S.K. does this well as a component of his thoughtful explication. Here is one that I've chosen to look at today, "the scoffer." I find it somewhat amusing, and the logic humorous, given the environment in which I work -a high school and college. From both students and teachers I hear logically sound arguments used toward ridiculous conclusions. I hope you enjoy this "admired," "good natured," and "witty" scoffer! (I think of him as the AP student who tested into English 100 and uses his ability to pontificate to challenge every comment I make!)

"Tomorrow I shall announce that I, the undersigned, am God." While I haven't heard a student utter these words exactly, they have come close ;)

Good friends of the Scoffer also included in this section are the Philosopher, Sagacious, Sensible, Clergyman, Statesman, and the Solid Citizen. I enjoyed all of them, but thought the Scoffer most accessible. He makes me shiver, because I know that with his audacity he would surely voice any and every opinion of me, and his whispers of shame and condemnation would follow me in wagging tongues on the street, outside of my home, in my occupation, to the market-place, and in the temple. The scoffer would boldly make known his criticism, not just of Jesus, but of me:

"Imagine yourself contemporary with him..."

By following Jesus, one contemporary with him loses everything, including reputation and the good opinion of the "sagacious, sensible, and reputable people." If one were already mad, homeless, scorned, and an outcast, this wouldn't be nearly as difficult -moving from one association as a lunatic to another. But if one were a rich man (not just in materials, but in knowledge, friendships, position, interests, freedom to come and go, and do and be whatever one would like...) he would have everything to lose, and so it will be nearly impossible for him to find, in Jesus, the Kingdom of God. As the rich young man in the gospel accounts, he would walk away sad.

"Do not say this whole account is exaggeration! You do know, of course, that of all the esteemed, all the enlightened and sensible contemporaries --while it certainly is possible that one or two of them, perhaps several, had something to do with him out of curiosity --there was only one, just one, who in earnest sought him out, and he came to him -at night."

Because I really like to complicate matters I have to tell you just what this makes me wonder!

How come they had to sacrifice everything to choose him when Jesus was right there, before them -speaking, walking, sharing, loving, and healing, and we can waltz in and out of the bible, church, prayer, and relationship whenever it is convenient . The cover of night is not required because we are not scorned, persecuted, or chastised for associating with him. Albeit, religion has a bit of a stereotype in the U.S., especially Christianity, but all we need to do is sequester ourselves among other Christians to avoid any discomfort.

Yet they only dared to come to him at night:

I wonder if Kierkegaard's objective, in personifying the contemporaries of Jesus, is to suggest that Christianity has become so tame that there is no offense in it (which basically means that it is not Christianity). Has Christianity acquiesced inch by inch as persecution, martyrs, and dissenters chipped away at the resolve to maintain allegiance to the disgraced, disreputable, and abased example of Jesus? Has Christianity conceded to human tendencies toward ease, boredom, comfort, complacency, justification, happiness, and self-service, so much so that Christianity has become a human invention when it was originally in complete opposition to human systems, culture, and and vice?

I think the shame in Christianity is not from the offense (challenge to authority, questioning societal and religious norms, displacing the earthly kingdom with the priority and rule of God), but from the emptiness. When the world looks on they see us come and go, and come and go, Sunday morning, Sunday night, Wednesday evening, and times in between. And they are prevented from even caring what we do, because other than our commitment, we have nothing else to show: good, bad, alluring, or offensive for all of our Christ following in twenty-first century Christendom. They chuckle at us, shake their heads, and return to their meaningful lives.

Off of my soap box. I mean, S.K.'s.

The Scoffer will really enjoy tomorrow's post. Jesus died. "Now everything has happened to him that all the sagacious and sensible people, the statesmen and citizens, the scoffers etc., predicted."

Kierkegaard: Sensing Through Faith pt. 4

Read the introduction and part 1 of this series here. Also, part 2, part 3.

A short post will do for today, as they have been getting quite long! But still it's profound and I can't move forward unless I see a portrait of myself. If I were his contemporary...

"May no one ever eat fruit from you again."

I would stand back, from afar, watching, glaring, chiding...

I ask so many questions and pour over the scriptures for answers. I religiously abide by every spoken and unspoken law that he, he, uh!, that that man, Jesus, is trying to bend.

And as people swarm in masses to be near, to touch, and to see him I would be moved to hot and stinging tears at their foolishness, at his audacity, at Yhwh's anger, which must be brewing against us yet again for forsaking Him!

If I were contemporary with Jesus (and a man), I would judge him, condemn him, and brood with scholars, thinkers, and elders -and yet inside I would wish to be close enough to ask him my questions and hear his answers that pierce me with both anger and life spontaneously, but I would not crawl to him through the rabble.

As I walked down the street with Patrick close behind, a man followed. From his tall, skinny, wrinkling frame came proclamations, flowing bible quotations and prophecies that I could have comfortably read in my bible. I paid him no heed, freezing cold and shivering, about to step off of the curb to cross the street when Patrick responded "Preach it brother!" as his attempt at acknowledging with a quick nod and a smile.

"Brother, don't keep walking and act like I don't exist. Look at me man, talk to me. Thou shalt love thy neighbor, LOVE thy neighbor..." and he went on and on and on.

I continued to inch away, and Patrick kept speaking back to the man whose eyes were shaded by reflective sunglasses. I saw my image in his eyes, but bored by his words, anxious to warm, and distressed by his obvious disregard for propriety when it comes to "bible bashing," I made it very clear that I wanted to leave.

He noticed.

"My wife does the same thing," he said. "She has no time for strangers, always wants to go, and then he quoted a verse."

"I'm cold!" I blurted, jumping up and down.

"Well here, young lady. I'll give you the coat off of my back. 'Whatever a person asks, give to him in need,'" he quoted. "You want my coat?" He moved to put it around my shoulders, but I squirmed away, grabbed Patrick's arm and nearly dragged him away.

Our friend was quickly sidetracked by some bikers clad in leather, asking if he could bother them for a cigarette.

I began to fume internally, thinking the He is the reasons Christians have such a bad reputation.

I know that were I contemporary with Jesus, with my pride intact, fear, piety, rules, and comfort, I would have shunned him. I cannot "dupe [my]self into believing that I am a Christian" just because I believe in God. That is not what it means to follow and emulate the words and actions of an abased Jesus and his rag-tag rabble of fishermen and tax collectors.

Kierkegaard: Sensing Through Faith pt. 3

Read the introduction and part 1 of this series here.

"For only in this way has he existed"

In our quest to learn who Jesus is, we stopped with the conclusion that while he was on earth Jesus was human, because that is who we must meet first.

These concepts are fundamentally unsettling because we live beyond the interim, in the midst of Christendom that proclaims the deity of Jesus. We read Jesus' words as if it were God who spoke them:

He will give you all you need from day to day if you make the Kingdom of God your primary concern-Sell what you have and give to those in need-I wish that my task were already completed-There is a terrible baptism ahead of me, and I am under a heavy burden until it is accomplished-Invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, and the blind-No one can become my disciple without giving up everything for me*

And why is this particularly incorrect, to read Jesus through a cloak of majesty? Kierkegaard writes that it is because "From glory he has not spoken a word;" "it was in the condition of abasement that he spoke those words; he did not speak them from glory."

The word abasement keeps reoccurring as a qualifying noun, which means to be in a state of being belittled or degraded. In other words, when Jesus lived on earth, speaking, healing, performing miracles, and relating with people he was not glorified, praised, or honored for his words as a deity. He was misunderstood, criticized, shunned by the wise and learned, flocked to by people who wanted to observe a side-show freak. His wisdom was an offense! Crowds gathered, yes, as the crowd-mentality of "commoners" still moves people to gather; those who have nothing but poverty, addiction, rejection, and hopelessness assemble, whispering, gossiping, mutating promises to benefit their own destitute needs -they have nothing else to hope in!

"One can not become a believer except by coming to him in his state of abasement;" "He does not exist in any other way, for only in this way has he existed."

Jesus did not exist in any way other than in human form when he spoke the words recorded in each gospel. The implications of this are many, and mainly (I am speaking on my own), it prevents justification for not believing him, enacting his words, being transformed into people who sell and give everything, who invite and keep company with the poor, addicted, and suffering, who bear great burdens of scorn, criticism, sacrifice, and insignificance, who heal and invite the Holy Spirit to incite healing, prophecy, and works of a spiritual nature because, well, he was God and I'm not.

Listen!

We do not really care to find out in a deeper sense what it is he does; even less do we try with the help of God and according to our humble capacities to imitate him in doing the right, the noble, the sublime, the true.

We are content to admire and extol and . . . are too cowardly and flabby really to want to understand.

Have we, as S.K. accuses, "abolished Christianity," which is following, or emulating (as a disciple) qualities and the example set forth by Jesus?

Further, what does crowning Jesus ourselves in glory do to the authority and purpose of God, who sent Jesus "only in this way:" abased, human...

As in everything with God, the line "he abased himself," supposes that it was intentional and divinely implemented for Jesus to come as he did. Jesus promises to come in glory, and to his disciples he says, "When the Son of Man returns, you will know it beyond all doubt" (Lk. 17:24). Observe the pictures below.

"Too shabby a glory"

Where humans have placed a crown on Jesus' head and placed him in a position of authority, is conceit, according to S.K. because this goes beyond human understanding, and is "too shabby a glory." Where Jesus has been extolled according to human fashion, he remains a backdrop, a figurine, a statue.

Consider the scene in Gethsemane.

He began to be filled with horror and deep distress. He told them, "My soul is crushed with grief to the point of death. Stay here and watch with me."

He went on a little farther and fell face down on the ground. He prayed that, if it were possible, the awful hour awaiting him might pass him by. "Abba, father, everything is possible for you. Please take this cup of suffering away from me. Yet I want your will, not mine."

Then he returned and found the disciples asleep! . . . And they didn't know what to say. Mark 14:33-40

If this were God, in his glory speaking, "then woe to the person who has the presumption to take his lowliness from him or let the wrongs he suffered be forgotten."

Jesus felt as a human being, made the choice, as a human being to obey God -even at the point of sacrificing everything! In human strength, not supernatural, "He was oppressed and treated harshly, yet never said a word. He was led as a lamb to the slaughter . . . It was the Lords good plan to crush him and fill him with grief" (Isaiah 53:7-10).

"And they didn't know what to say" --Finally, something I can relate to, something that I can understand. The disciples were tired, and when they woke up to a harried, frantic, panicking Jesus, they did not bow to the ground, place a crown of glory on his head, and extol him. They didn't know what to say! And they fell back asleep.

"But who among the people realized that he was dying for their sins-that he was suffering their punishment?" Isaiah 53:8. Certainly the disciples did not, nor would I, if I were contemporary with Christ. "No generation can be regarded as guiltless but every generation must be considered an accomplice to what that generation did to him."

I do not understand the story, nor the actuality, in an actual-rational sense, or through belief. I am still gawking, as the apostles, dumbly, because I do not know Jesus in his majesty. His deity, which would knock me on my face is hidden at his sacrifice so that I only know his humanity, and in this I have compassion, at the very most. He did not demand worship, command praise, revel in pride over how great His love was for me -despite my blindness. No, in coming as a human, he washed my feet, he served me by showing me the epitome of God's compassion, grace, and love for humans. His act was beyond human understanding, not because it is too lofy, but because it is too low, so humble that I cannot know.

Profound explanation:

To proclaim that Christ has come in glory is to forget Jesus, regardless of how pretty and awesome it sounds. That "is not Christianity."

What is?

* Luke 12:31; 12:33; 12:49-50; 14:13; 14:33;

Kierkegaard: Sensing Through Faith pt. 2

Read the introduction and part 1 of this series here.

Who is Jesus?

(Ahem). Today (through Kierkegaard) I am going to answer the question, solve the debates, and issue an authoritative statement in response to this question.

I was completely joking when I typed that, in fair form, as many bloggers who discuss "the universe," "love," "the American political system," ... in a single blog post. But, I think it is possible to know who Jesus is (or was, is/was) -isn't that where the discussion begins?

I have long thought that I know who Jesus is. The Easter season in the church is riddled with explanations. When I was a child, growing up in the Catholic Church, Jesus' figure on the cross was a backdrop as I wavered between a decision to give up soda or candy for lent. Weekly, I participated in the somber reflection on Jesus' life leading to the cross (through a family viewing of Jesus of Nazareth weekly). I chose a new frilly Easter dress, anticipated the Easter Bunny, colored eggs, and candy. What a conglomeration of symbols and mixed messages! I don't need to pick on any of these traditions; they served their purpose: fun when it was appropriate, somber and repentant at other times, silly and anticipated, disciplined and longing, creative and celebratory. I had a wonderful childhood.

The challenge has been growing up, because now I have to decide what to do with all of the fragments. I have a hard time doing anything for the sake of tradition, and I want to know why we do what we do, who Jesus was, what the act on the cross meant, why the Jesus character in the film rarely smiled, how to conjure renewed emotion year after year... anyone else resonate?

I have since attended a protestant church and the plot thickens... why do they skip to Sunday's resurrection and chant "Minister: He is risen, People: He is risen indeed!" What are they celebrating, if there is little-to-no acknowledgment of death on Friday? And the manner of fanfare, auditoriums, venues, rhythmic interpretive dancing, painting, flyers. I have no idea.

The gospel accounts, essentially Jesus' life and resurrection are highlighted, explicated, historicized, dramatized, and indoctrinated as THE events that shaped Christendom. But what do these stories mean exactly? (They are a form of translated narrative and my learned profession requires me to analytically and critically access texts for theoretical, symbolic, and real fragments. I'm just supposed to read them and accept that one day God was born...and then he died, and my sin is forgiven?) The God/man paradigm never made “sense” to me, and I knew that in my mind I was missing the point, an abased and simple point.

Along came Kierkegaard.

The version from which I read and quote

What has happened in 2012 years since Christ (or 1800 if you are S.K.)? Without explaining every way that the church has represented Christ (though I'm surprised that he didn't attempt this. An S.K. joke... ) Kierkegaard simply says that "history" has represented Christ into a knowable and known being. Jesus has been cloaked with an identity so that nearly everyone in a Western society, secular or Christian, knows that Jesus claimed and was expressed as being God, who came to earth in human form, lived a life that history proves was defined by miraculous events, that he was crucified under the Roman command, but because the people demanded it. Here, Christian history splinters to say that he rose from the dead and went to heaven to be with God. This is a simplified account of the claims about Jesus, and does not include religious doctrine or practice resulting from the implication of Christ's divinity, the historicization of his life on earth, or various other teachings and interpretations of these known events.

Read:

Kierkegaard posits that Christ is misrepresented by a history of Christendom that robes Jesus in his divinity prematurely. A key passage to note above is "...it is also untrue, and the words that he said become untrue . . . if I make him essentially different from what he was when he said them." Returning to the question asked at the beginning of this post, who is Jesus, we know that "it pleased God" to come as a "lowly servant," in appearances, "just like any other human being." This is who Jesus was, very simply, Jesus was human. When he was on earth he came, not as God, but as a man.

Read those quotes carefully to see that S.K. is not making a speculative claim. He does not make a claim about Jesus' divinity or his God/man nature at all because that removes Jesus from the context in which He came to the world. He was not known as God. His miracles, his kindness, his compassion, gentleness, grace, fortitude, selfless acts and miracles were expressed, and are recorded in the bible as Jesus speaking, the humble son of Joseph and Mary from Galilee, in human form. It is only space, the "intervening period" of 2,000 years that has cloaked these words with supernatural, divine, God-instead-of-man weight. What of his humanity that spoke with full knowledge of human emotion, of social pressure and stereotype, of the temptation to fear, or the vulnerability to spiritual opposition, and the difficulty of saying yes to pain, death, shame, ridicule, pride, the absence of God, and the weight of sin? This is the "abased" Jesus Christ who, through the power of the Holy Spirit, not his own divinity, was empowered to perform miracles and to represent the truth and wisdom of God.

S.K. goes so far as to say that to think of Jesus as God, to read his words as if it were God speaking them is blasphemy because the truth recorded in the scripture is that he was the son of man, born into the world: "When He who holds all possibilities in his hand takes upon himself the form of a lowly servant . . . he surely must know well enough what he is doing and why he wills it."

* To clarify, this does not posit that Jesus is not God. That is coming. Philosophy pokes at small ideas, forgetting momentarily the larger view, and then hones the ideas thoroughly into a larger, theoretical concept. That is why people often label philosophy "dense," and exacerbated, wonder "what's is the point?" The point is always present, just thoroughly examined.

Kierkegaard: Sensing Through Faith pt. 1

Dr. Seuss "Plethora of Flowers"

A wise man who knew of my affinity for Kierkegaard told me with a laugh, "You should only read Kierkegaard in accompaniment with Dr. Seuss." In other words, the potency of S.K. is such that balance is necessary to prevent depression, head strain, heartache, and despondency.

Having spent several years with S.K., I've come to a conclusion that he is generally misunderstood. I think for one, because of his rhetorical style. Two, because of his biography. And three, because everyone takes everyone else's word for it.

Here is my simple key to reading Kierkegaard:

1. Understand that he is extremely thorough! To make a single point is not a straight shot from A to B. He qualifies every assertion. It reads more like A, therefore Ab, but if Ab, then Ac, getting back to A, there is also A1, and A2 to consider before ever landing at B. In other words, just relax and appreciate the ride. Don't panic if you feel lost because he will eventually return to his original point and it will suddenly become so pristinely clear that all you can do is marvel.

1b. Keep in mind that it is a translation, so not everything is as smooth as it could be.

2. He was depressed, melancholy, and anxious. And often he wrote about these experiences. However, that does not mean that his work transmits these impressions. In fact, these tendencies lead to astonishing wisdom, traces of wit and sarcasm, and anguishing honesty that will lead you to examine your own soul with authenticity.

3. S.K. is known as the father of existentialism. Problem: existentialism was "invented" over 100 years after Kierkegaard's death. The only way for secular scholars to digest his writings and philosophy was to extricate and reify the strains of faith, wisdom, and riveting theology into a discomfort with "the problem of existence." Do not take their word for it; S.K. is the most profound theologian and man of God that I have ever read.

Now that I've clarified those points, lets dig in. Shall we?

I'm going to post his writing in picture form for two reasons. 1. I don't care to type long passages. 2. More importantly, I tend to skip over quoted passages when I read blogs unless they are presented in book form. It's a matter of preference, but click the image to enlarge if you'd like to see it bigger.

One primary feature of Kierkegaard's work, what has caused secular and Christian thinkers to label him the Father of Existentialism, is that he does not engage with reason when speaking in support of Christianity. This means that he realizes, quite obviously, that matters of spiritual existence, God, Jesus, purpose, miracles, and scripture are not able to be brought into the rational-actual.

Remember being taught in the dark ages of the 1990s and prior that atoms were the smallest building block of matter? Well even the atom breaks down to quarks and leptons held together by bosons. Perhaps we will soon discover even smaller units of matter, but my point is that every thing in material existence can be (or is in the process of being) broken down into rational-actual units and explained to its smallest element of material being. This, human reason can articulate and know.

God and the realm of spirit is incompatible with human reason and the rational-actual; it cannot be broken down and proven by science, nor even known through abstract thought, analysis, or metaphor -it is simply unknowable. Trying to prove or "demonstrate" God or spirit is, according to S.K. "blasphemy," in the Christian sense, "offensive," and "contrary," to a human audience.

One must either believe in [Jesus] or be offended; for to "know" simply means that it is not about him. Thus history can indeed richly communicate knowledge, but knowledge annihilates Jesus Christ. -Kierkegaard

In light of this, Kierkegaard does not engage with reason or the rational-actual to discuss Christianity. Instead, he aims to get behind faith, to discuss Christianity from a dimension of humanity that cannot be known by reason, but only through faith. An unbelieving world would not know what to make of this, so they have called him an existentialist, one who contemplates matters/problems of existence. The presupposition is that existentialism is unstable. Unlike matter, which is founded, supportable, and solid, "theories" of existence are unsupportable, and therefore wobbly at best. I would never label Kierkegaard an existentialist; his claims about faith, spirit, existence, and Christianity are nearly as supportable if not more supportable than material existence. Truth has a weight and sharpness that is wielded uncontested.

Read his words, which are often biblical explications and measure how they sit in your soul. It is a practice in Christianity, in faith, and reason will likely protest, but it is not the only governing medium, regardless of what a scientific, Western world-view purports.