Since I posted "Decisions in Grey" I've had further conversations with at least three additional and very thoughtful people about those decisions in the grey country. The grey country has questions like: how much alcohol is ok to drink; can I smoke marijuana; isn't our culture of recreations sex simply like like the times of biblical concubines; isn't committed living together just like a marriage anyway? From these discussions some new thoughts have emerged, most notably around how to approach the dangers of the grey country.
There is a necessary role for Christians to understand dangerous spiritual territory, because we need to engage in the world, and to do that we need to understand the landscape. The danger is, or course, that in these places of twisted paths and subtle diversions we ourselves make a choice that takes us off our path toward God. Some know the nature of these places by inadvertent exposure, some by the consequence of deliberate choice, and some because God calls them to walk alongside those who have been hurt in these places. Not all come out spiritually alive. So there are some critical questions as we look down a path, questions which require BRUTAL honesty. Brutal, because we're masters of self-deception. So if you're asking questions like "Can I get drunk in private", "Is it ok to sexually live together before committing to each other", "What about marijuana?" or any other similar question, then read on. I'm going to approach this in three sub-topics, oddly titled "Honesty about danger", "A theology of two words", and "Why did I ask in the first place?". 1. Honesty about danger There is a syndrome that goes by the term "Aspirational buying". This is where we buy all the tools, equipment, and learn the theory needed in order to undertake an expedition. We do it because we like to think we need it all (and it also looks cool to others!). Examples I've seen include a woman in a freshly ironed, brand new khaki safari suit, with all the accessories, stepping out of a small plane at a bush camp in the middle of the Okovango swamp -- while wearing high-heel shoes! I've known people so loaded with hiking equipment that they can barely manage the physical demands of a short day trip. And then there are those road cyclists with all the skin-tight fluorescent clothes, water packs and electronic gadgets, and a bike that must have cost the equivalent of a round-the-world vacation, who then barely make the cut in a cycle race. Such acquisition makes one think "I can handle anything" The Christian equivalent is "I've done the courses, I've read the books, I know what's right and wrong. Trust me, I can do this." And so they embark on the adventure. The problem comes when one is stepping into the wilderness with a theology that is learned, versus a theology that is lived. The former is aspirational theology, the latter is an ingrained practical theology tested in the fires of living in a God-relationship. Imagine reading a book about dinghy sailing and then taking your first excursion in a 30knot wind on the open ocean. Compare that with someone who's sailed from a young age, even though they know none of the terminology and use a leaky old dinghy with blown out sails. I know who I would bet on. Intellectual preparedness does little to help when thrown in the deep end. We need to be honest, brutally honest, about the dangers of exploring a chosen path. 2. A theology of two words Lets assume first that we recognize, and acknowledge the danger in the landscape of grey decisions. Then, can we agree that our created purpose, above all else, is to live a life worshipful to God. If you can't accept that you need to go find another religion, or try atheism if you like pretending. For Christians this is a foundation stone of our professed faith (we can debate what "worship" means, but for now lets go with a simple definition that worship is what reflects the worth of God's nature). From this we can look at the two words: "Am I". Simplistically, a Christian's choices need to be rooted in questions such as "Am I doing that which reflects the nature of God?" Other forms of "Am I ..." could be "Am I honouring God", or "Am I hurting others?" or "Am I moving away from God?", etc. Those two words "Am I ..." are deeply interesting. First, they show a willingness to be honest with oneself by questioning our motivations. For if our choices are not rooted in worship, then they're rooted in our own desires. Peter Kreeft, in a discussion on basic "Moral Theology and Homosexuality" puts forward three criteria for whether or not something is a good step to take, whether it reflects a worship of God's nature or not:
So when I ask "Am I ..." one needs to ask this about all three criteria. Am I doing a right act (would Jesus do this?), am I building on motives honouring to God's desires (or are they my desires), am I choosing the right context (is doing it in this place and time going to draw me or others to God, or undermine God's purposes). Here's a real example: a Christian girl came to ask me about my view on her joining the annual naked bike ride (like this one) to protest the world's oil dependency (among other things). I strongly support the intention of the protest, I greatly admire her stated motivation, yet I question the act in it's context. For example, on a very practical level riding naked through the streets in a publicised event, with the consequent inevitable and excessive photography from bystanders (kids included) and news reporters, seems to me to expose (pun intended) oneself to uncontrolled and inappropriate usage of the images of your naked body. Second, I really question whether there is any real protest value of this action. Third, I don't see how this is God-honouring or would encourage people to draw close to God ... quite the opposite in fact. So I suggested that the "Am I" questions would conclude with "I am not". So, about the theology of "Am I". Answering the questions posed means I will move from "Am I ..." to "I am ...", because I make a choice to act. This phrase "I am" is of course the name God gives himself, he is the capitalized "I AM". By this God means (among many things) that he has ultimate perspective and ultimate authority in all things (and is yet another argument for the deity of Jesus, because he says all authority is his). So when we are saying "I am" we are likewise making a claim to authority. The critical issue here is that are we making a claim to authorize an action that reflects God's nature? Or are we seeking to authorize an act independent of God's authorization? If the latter, then we are claiming an authority apart from God. That is pride in its purest form, and we know how God feels about pride. Lucifer's fall was over such pride. So lets be hyper-aware of the greatest danger of all in this troublesome Grey landscape; the danger that we take for ourselves an "I am" that is not aligned with the "I AM". I can think of no greater danger in this life or the next. 3. Why did I ask in the first place? I'll end this first with a note on responsibility. I alone, no one else, not my parents, not my friends, and not my enemies, carry all responsibility for my decisions and the inevitable consequence on myself and potentially on others. For in every choice there is always a gain and a loss: by choosing for one action I will lose another option, an in doing so steer my path, and probably the path of others. Second, a few comments on Kreeft's criteria, especially motivation or intention. For example, why am I asking my question in the grey zone? Being brutally honest, what is the outcome that I am seeking? What drives my even considering my question? Have I asked these, and can I answer them? For God gives us things to enjoy, and he provides all we need. Therefore, am I seeking to serve a pleasure or a need. For the pleasure, there are God's frameworks where pleasure is best enjoyed. For needs, God wants us to lean on him, he desires us to ask him for all we need. And then for both worshipful pleasures and real needs there is also the question "Am I asking this in the right time and place?" Thus my concluding thought is this. First, if I am seeking the pleasures he has made for me, then I need the enjoy these within the parameters of a worshipful life, and my initial question should always be on what are the worshipful parameters of this pleasure. If I am seeking provision for needs, then I need to depend on him who is sufficient to supply all I need. To do otherwise is to not live a life that reflects God's worth. That is the danger, that is the choice.
0 Comments
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply. |
Why?
Probably the best therapy is to express yourself. Why do you think psychiatrists make you lie on the couch and talk, while all they do is murmur "hmmm", "uhuh", or "go on"? Archives
May 2017
|