I apologize for my tardiness in continuing my series on "Theological Infallibility". The basic question is this - "How should I respond to the inherent uncertainty that comes with being human while building a Theology?" I mentioned that uncertainty seemed to strong a response, and that humility was more of an attitude than a proactive response.
Another possible response is, "openness" (yes, it's a word). In today's society, if you want to insult someone just call them, "close-minded". You can bet money that everybody who's trying to be somebody is remaining "open" to all the options. But what exactly does it mean to be open. It's a little hard to define.
The idea of being open in your Theology basically means that you're unwilling to "close" the door of your mind and thus become "bias" towards a certain position. Someone who is truly open, won't build a theology based on a solid foundation, because he/she must remain open (free from commitment) even in regards to foundational issues.
However some would argue that the whole idea behind opening your mind is so that you can eventually close it. In other words, you open your mind to all the options, weigh the evidence, and make a decision - case closed (pun intended). Others find virtue in remaining perpetually open to all options, regardless of how strong the evidence points towards something.
There are a lot of things I like about the idea of being open in your Theology. (not to be confused with Open Theism which denies God's ability to know the future) However, being open comes with a lot of risks. I am much more attracted to, and will discuss in the next post, a modified position, which I call - conversation.
Showing posts with label Depravity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Depravity. Show all posts
Monday, November 23, 2009
Monday, September 28, 2009
Certainly Not: Part Three
If you're just tuning in, I've been talking about what I call, "Theological Fallibility". Basically, the idea is this - we know, due to our imperfect nature, that we must be wrong in some area of our theology (we just don't know which area). So, how do we respond to this troubling theological pickle?
I've already dealt with the response of Uncertainty, so what about the response of Humility? Humility recognizes it's insignificant place among a sea of theological perspectives. Simply among Baptists there can be a wide divergence of views, but when you broaden this out, the artist of Evangelicalism begins painting with even wider brush strokes. Adjust your telescope, and you can see the countless stars of denominations within the galaxy of Protestantism. As your perspective broadens even more, you see the tree of Christendom branching out into Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Protestantism. As if this wasn't divergent enough, you realize all the above are cheaply categorized as "Christian" and (to the western mind) it's them against Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism...the list goes on and on.
I've already dealt with the response of Uncertainty, so what about the response of Humility? Humility recognizes it's insignificant place among a sea of theological perspectives. Simply among Baptists there can be a wide divergence of views, but when you broaden this out, the artist of Evangelicalism begins painting with even wider brush strokes. Adjust your telescope, and you can see the countless stars of denominations within the galaxy of Protestantism. As your perspective broadens even more, you see the tree of Christendom branching out into Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Protestantism. As if this wasn't divergent enough, you realize all the above are cheaply categorized as "Christian" and (to the western mind) it's them against Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism...the list goes on and on.
With so MANY different views, how could I possibly claim that I have somehow escaped error, and am a virtual color commentator of the acts of the almighty God (if there is one, says the Atheist). The theologian, pinned between the rock of human fallibility and the hard place of divergent opinion, is driven to his knees. We realize our tiny, insignificant place among such a significant majority.
Thus, humility isn't really a response, it's more of an attitude. It's an attitude taken by somebody who's been put in their place. However, as important as proper perspective, and an attitude of humility is in this task of building a theology - it still doesn't answer the question of how to proactively respond to our theological fallibility. Indeed, we must keep looking for a better way - a way forward.
~~~
Part Four of this series will continue our journey towards finding a proper response to our Theological Fallibility.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Certainly Not: Part Two
So basically, the idea so far is that the imperfect aspect of our humanity demands that we are wrong in some area of our theology. The problem is, we don't know what those areas are, and we'll never reach a perfectly tuned theology. I'm assuming that you're with me up to this point, the area in which we might diverge is in how to respond to this quite troubling realization of our fallible humanity. How should we respond?
There are four (probably more) ways to respond to our "theological fallibility"...
1. Uncertainty
2. Humility
3. Openness
4. Conversation
First, let's look at uncertainty. This response is a glass-half-empty, pessimistic theology. Uncertainty avoids making propositional truth claims (especially metanarratives), and can never fully define with certainty the finer (even essential) points of it's theology. Uncertainty doesn't like an ABC ducks-in-a-row theology, and is skeptical of any matter-of-fact theologian. Uncertainty revels in the mystery of God, and doesn't like to put Him in a box, no matter how over-sized. This type of person openly admits to not having everything figured out - and is perfectly content to keep it that way.
I think this response - blanket uncertainty - fails in it's inability to differentiate between black, gray, and white. For example, I KNOW my wife's name is Emily. I KNOW she's 4' 11''. I KNOW she is an interpreter, and I KNOW that she is (at this moment) sleeping soundly in another part of the house. What may not be as tangible is her love for me, respect of me, and loyalty to me. I know these latter things are true, I just know experientially as opposed to intellectually.
What's interesting to me is that the most certain things in life (e.g. that wall is blue) are the most inconsequential. It is the not-as-certain things which carry the most weight (e.g. does my wife really love me?). But I digress, the point is that there are some things which we can be certain about, and then there are other things which require a bit more caution (duh). Thus, blanket uncertainty is like pulling out a rocket launcher during a rubber band fight - slight over-reaction.
~~~
Part Three will take a look at some other ways to respond to this "theological fallibility" dilemma.
There are four (probably more) ways to respond to our "theological fallibility"...
1. Uncertainty
2. Humility
3. Openness
4. Conversation
First, let's look at uncertainty. This response is a glass-half-empty, pessimistic theology. Uncertainty avoids making propositional truth claims (especially metanarratives), and can never fully define with certainty the finer (even essential) points of it's theology. Uncertainty doesn't like an ABC ducks-in-a-row theology, and is skeptical of any matter-of-fact theologian. Uncertainty revels in the mystery of God, and doesn't like to put Him in a box, no matter how over-sized. This type of person openly admits to not having everything figured out - and is perfectly content to keep it that way.
I think this response - blanket uncertainty - fails in it's inability to differentiate between black, gray, and white. For example, I KNOW my wife's name is Emily. I KNOW she's 4' 11''. I KNOW she is an interpreter, and I KNOW that she is (at this moment) sleeping soundly in another part of the house. What may not be as tangible is her love for me, respect of me, and loyalty to me. I know these latter things are true, I just know experientially as opposed to intellectually.
What's interesting to me is that the most certain things in life (e.g. that wall is blue) are the most inconsequential. It is the not-as-certain things which carry the most weight (e.g. does my wife really love me?). But I digress, the point is that there are some things which we can be certain about, and then there are other things which require a bit more caution (duh). Thus, blanket uncertainty is like pulling out a rocket launcher during a rubber band fight - slight over-reaction.
~~~
Part Three will take a look at some other ways to respond to this "theological fallibility" dilemma.
Saturday, September 19, 2009
Certainly Not: Part One
I would assume, and I think this is a safe assumption, that if you asked a crowd of about 300 people to raise their hand if they thought something they believed was false - no hands would go up. Nobody thinks something they believe is wrong, otherwise - they wouldn't believe it.
However, if you asked that same group of 300 people to raise their hand if they thought they were perfect, again, not a single hand would go up. So, how do we reconcile these two commonly accepted truths, 1) we aren't perfect AND 2) as far as we know, we don't believe anything that is wrong?
The implication is this: Though I can't pinpoint it exactly, my humanity dictates that I must be categorically wrong in some area or another of my theology/belief system.
When I was a data entry clerk, I entered thousands and thousands of keystrokes into a computer. Common sense tells me that, though I didn't know it at the time, I MUST have made a few mistakes while typing. It's like that with our theology. Our humanity guarantees that we've made a mistake, we just don't know where.
Maybe our source was wrong, maybe we aren't coming at it from the right perspective, maybe we've misinterpreted a passage, maybe their is a textual variant, maybe our presuppositions are getting in the way, maybe we're thinking with wrong categories, maybe there is still more information to be discovered, maybe, maybe, maybe. How are we supposed to build a theology on a bunch of "maybes"?
~~~
Part two of this series will look at four possible responses to this dilemma - Uncertainty, Humility, Openness, and Conversation
However, if you asked that same group of 300 people to raise their hand if they thought they were perfect, again, not a single hand would go up. So, how do we reconcile these two commonly accepted truths, 1) we aren't perfect AND 2) as far as we know, we don't believe anything that is wrong?
The implication is this: Though I can't pinpoint it exactly, my humanity dictates that I must be categorically wrong in some area or another of my theology/belief system.
When I was a data entry clerk, I entered thousands and thousands of keystrokes into a computer. Common sense tells me that, though I didn't know it at the time, I MUST have made a few mistakes while typing. It's like that with our theology. Our humanity guarantees that we've made a mistake, we just don't know where.
Maybe our source was wrong, maybe we aren't coming at it from the right perspective, maybe we've misinterpreted a passage, maybe their is a textual variant, maybe our presuppositions are getting in the way, maybe we're thinking with wrong categories, maybe there is still more information to be discovered, maybe, maybe, maybe. How are we supposed to build a theology on a bunch of "maybes"?
~~~
Part two of this series will look at four possible responses to this dilemma - Uncertainty, Humility, Openness, and Conversation
Monday, January 26, 2009
Speaking of Evil (Part 3 of 3)
The following is the last in a three part series on the topic of, what I've called, "Progressive Depravity".
~~~~
Speculative Dialogue on Progressive Depravity
Part Three
Level Seven- Mockery of Sin
This is probably the most readily observable level in our society today. At the high school lunch table, students joke about cheating on a test. In the work break room coworkers joke about who woke up next to who. In the theater, patrons watch movies which consistently re-draw the line of morality. On T.V., sitcoms make fidelity and compassion in a marriage seem extremist. Late night shows entertain us with sin in skit form. Children’s movies are laced with innuendos. The blurring tears of laughter function as a welcomed distraction from the burdensome task of determining right and wrong.
Level Eight- Antagonism of Righteousness
At this level, not only is there mockery of sin, but there is an attack upon righteousness. The teenager who hasn’t had sex before age 16 is no longer viewed as good, but as gay. The adult who doesn’t smoke or drink is no longer viewed as wise, but as weak. The husband who doesn’t lust after other women is no longer viewed as faithful, but as freakish. The person who doesn’t swear is no long viewed as innocent, but as immature. The person who loves playing with children is no longer viewed as parental, but as pedophilic.
Those at this level, by killing the messenger, have successfully eliminated anyone who would have attempted to help them at this point. This is the extreme danger, and hardness of this level. Anyone who could have brought the truth is picked off by the sniper of antagonism from miles away.
Level Nine- Taboo Experimentation
This level manifests it’s boredom with righteousness and love of evil, not by antagonizing the former, but by experimenting with the latter. This is when normal sin no longer carries with it the same thrill. Perverse forms of sin must be manufactured (e.g. bestiality, genocide, necrophilia) in order to keep up with the demands of a perverse heart.
Fortunately, this level is often viewed by the public as depraved. When we hear of this type of thing in the news we generally use words like sick, twisted, or perverse etc. The fact of unnatural experimentation is recognized by the choice of vocabulary. Experimentation is, in fact, the key word of this level. The seriousness of this level isn’t due to the presence of sin, but rather to the intensity with which it is invented. When you pervert the foundations of reality, oughtness becomes less and less of a tangible reality, and more and more of a distant memory. Depravity cannot help but fill the massive hole created by the vacuum of jettisoned morality.
Level Ten- Publicized Experimentation
This level is merely the broadcasting of the former. What was once done in secret, is now done on stage. (I debated for a long time whether or not to mention a semi-recent event as an illustration of this level. Since I am not sure what age groups may read this, and due to the explicit nature of the topic, I will not include the section I wrote for level 10.) This is the end, there is no greater possible expression of human depravity.
A Step Back
One must pause and take a deep breath after such a long look at the capability of humanity. But is it really all so bad? Is all hope really lost? Where does this evil come from? What is the explanation for these types of atrocities? Who is to blame for these massive human blunders? Is there hope that the evil inside of our hearts will be eradicated through the avenue of human achievement?
A Step Inward
Often times, a "who's who" list of names is brought up as evidence for the depraved nature of mankind. Names like Adolf Hitler, Jim Jones, Warren Jeffs, Joseph Fritzl, Osama Bin Laden, and Ted Bundy are presented as the epitome of evil (and all of these men are examples from just the past 100 years!). Jesus however, speaking on the topic of ethics, took a different approach. He directed one’s gaze away from the gross sins of others (You have heard that it has been said, “Do not murder”), and directed it inward (I say unto you, “Do not hate“.). I'm convinced that simple, honest, observation of ones own heart is all the evidence necessary to establish our depraved nature. We’ve all felt it. That queer propensity within ourselves to do what we know we shouldn’t. The potential for evil is strongly felt in each one of us, and frankly, it is unnerving. It has been said that the depravity of man is one of the most existentially verifiable, and yet most vehemently denied anthropological realities.
A Step of Inquiry
Jesus Christ came to this earth and accused it of sin and evil. Yet, while we were sinners, He loved us, died for us, and provided a way of escape. Could it be that we need a Savior, not at the end of the road of depravity, but at the beginning of the road of life? Could it be that all stages of depravity share the common thread of a heart alienated from God? Is there not a hypocrisy in each one of us that condemns the sin of others, and yet ignores our own pilgrimage into the same? Where do we go from here? Do we need a Savior?
~~~~
Speculative Dialogue on Progressive Depravity
Part Three
Level Seven- Mockery of Sin
This is probably the most readily observable level in our society today. At the high school lunch table, students joke about cheating on a test. In the work break room coworkers joke about who woke up next to who. In the theater, patrons watch movies which consistently re-draw the line of morality. On T.V., sitcoms make fidelity and compassion in a marriage seem extremist. Late night shows entertain us with sin in skit form. Children’s movies are laced with innuendos. The blurring tears of laughter function as a welcomed distraction from the burdensome task of determining right and wrong.
Level Eight- Antagonism of Righteousness
At this level, not only is there mockery of sin, but there is an attack upon righteousness. The teenager who hasn’t had sex before age 16 is no longer viewed as good, but as gay. The adult who doesn’t smoke or drink is no longer viewed as wise, but as weak. The husband who doesn’t lust after other women is no longer viewed as faithful, but as freakish. The person who doesn’t swear is no long viewed as innocent, but as immature. The person who loves playing with children is no longer viewed as parental, but as pedophilic.
Those at this level, by killing the messenger, have successfully eliminated anyone who would have attempted to help them at this point. This is the extreme danger, and hardness of this level. Anyone who could have brought the truth is picked off by the sniper of antagonism from miles away.
Level Nine- Taboo Experimentation
This level manifests it’s boredom with righteousness and love of evil, not by antagonizing the former, but by experimenting with the latter. This is when normal sin no longer carries with it the same thrill. Perverse forms of sin must be manufactured (e.g. bestiality, genocide, necrophilia) in order to keep up with the demands of a perverse heart.
Fortunately, this level is often viewed by the public as depraved. When we hear of this type of thing in the news we generally use words like sick, twisted, or perverse etc. The fact of unnatural experimentation is recognized by the choice of vocabulary. Experimentation is, in fact, the key word of this level. The seriousness of this level isn’t due to the presence of sin, but rather to the intensity with which it is invented. When you pervert the foundations of reality, oughtness becomes less and less of a tangible reality, and more and more of a distant memory. Depravity cannot help but fill the massive hole created by the vacuum of jettisoned morality.
Level Ten- Publicized Experimentation
This level is merely the broadcasting of the former. What was once done in secret, is now done on stage. (I debated for a long time whether or not to mention a semi-recent event as an illustration of this level. Since I am not sure what age groups may read this, and due to the explicit nature of the topic, I will not include the section I wrote for level 10.) This is the end, there is no greater possible expression of human depravity.
A Step Back
One must pause and take a deep breath after such a long look at the capability of humanity. But is it really all so bad? Is all hope really lost? Where does this evil come from? What is the explanation for these types of atrocities? Who is to blame for these massive human blunders? Is there hope that the evil inside of our hearts will be eradicated through the avenue of human achievement?
A Step Inward
Often times, a "who's who" list of names is brought up as evidence for the depraved nature of mankind. Names like Adolf Hitler, Jim Jones, Warren Jeffs, Joseph Fritzl, Osama Bin Laden, and Ted Bundy are presented as the epitome of evil (and all of these men are examples from just the past 100 years!). Jesus however, speaking on the topic of ethics, took a different approach. He directed one’s gaze away from the gross sins of others (You have heard that it has been said, “Do not murder”), and directed it inward (I say unto you, “Do not hate“.). I'm convinced that simple, honest, observation of ones own heart is all the evidence necessary to establish our depraved nature. We’ve all felt it. That queer propensity within ourselves to do what we know we shouldn’t. The potential for evil is strongly felt in each one of us, and frankly, it is unnerving. It has been said that the depravity of man is one of the most existentially verifiable, and yet most vehemently denied anthropological realities.
A Step of Inquiry
Jesus Christ came to this earth and accused it of sin and evil. Yet, while we were sinners, He loved us, died for us, and provided a way of escape. Could it be that we need a Savior, not at the end of the road of depravity, but at the beginning of the road of life? Could it be that all stages of depravity share the common thread of a heart alienated from God? Is there not a hypocrisy in each one of us that condemns the sin of others, and yet ignores our own pilgrimage into the same? Where do we go from here? Do we need a Savior?
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Speaking of Evil (Part 2 of 3)
The following is the second in a three part series on the topic of, what I've called, "Progressive Depravity".
~~~~
Speculative Dialogue on Progressive Depravity
Part Two
Level Three- Passive Disobedience
Person’s at this level also commit acts of disobedience (against a perceived cultural expectation), only in this case it is without the nagging hassle of guilt. This type of person doesn’t seek out evil, but at the same time, "You've got to do what you've got to do." If you’re late to work, speed. If you’re in a bind, lie. If you’re short on money, steal.
These type of people generally go under the radar. Commonality, by definition, doesn‘t make any headlines. In this stage, a vague sense of guilt acts in a restraining sense. In other words, no new sin is sought out, but current sin isn’t eradicated, because, we think, “I‘m no worse than the next guy”. This level is deceptively perpetrated as harmless. Lies are now labeled with adjectives like, ‘little’, and ‘white’, and soon, what was once forbidden is expected. Boredom with universality of experience brings the longing for something new.
Level Four- Rebellion without a Cause
Unlike the previous level, persons in this level seek out sin. The objectivity of the wrong pursued is not as relevant as the pursuit itself of perceived misconduct. On February 20, 2007, an article was posted on CNN.com with the headline, Teen 'sport killings' of homeless on the rise. The article tells of Nathan Moore and two of his teenage friends who beat a homeless man, Rex Baum, to death. This type of senseless evil is baffling. It at least makes sense that someone might ‘rob from the rich to give to the poor’, but this is more like murder the poor to, well, murder the poor.
Guilt in this level is beginning to fade rapidly. The necessary presence of guilt, in order to facilitate morality, cannot be stressed enough. Condemnation by others from without, pales in comparison to the prick of one’s own conscience from within. When the component of guilt begins to fade, morality begins to rapidly fade with it.
Level Five- Vigilante Rebellion
Rebellion in this stage comes in the form of those who claim to be championing the 'rights' of mankind. (e.g. Abortion rights movements) Unlike the previous level of rebellion, which is characterized negatively by the "mainstream", the charismatic zeal displayed by these activists is usually viewed by outsiders with a certain level of respect. It is for this reason that these type of movers and shakers of society are often viewed by the masses with quasi sympathy. Those who would dare to challenge the “rights” of mankind are viewed as exclusive elitists, therefore, society just lets it slide.
This level, though largely tolerated, is inherently dangerous for two reasons. First, it is contagious, thus it is, almost by default, a larger movement. Secondly, those at this level honestly think that they are doing what is best for society. It could be argued that since those in this level think that they are right, it isn't very evil (at least not on a scale of 1-10). On a subjective level, I would be forced to agree (and in all honesty, for most of the previous levels, I have argued from a strictly subjective standpoint). However in this case, the objective depravity of the issue, coupled with the complete absence of guilt forces me to categorize this type of behavior as worse than the previous levels.
Level Six- Apathetic Morality
This level can be summarized in three words, “I don’t care.” Every possible challenge presented before an apathetic mind receives the same rehearsed, “I don’t care.” The ironic thing is that the person in this level might be willing to admit that they are wrong, but the problem is, (surprise, surprise), they don’t care. Apathy saps the energy and feelings necessary to motivate, and activate the conscience.
The sudden switch from zeal and passion (in the previous level), to apathy and passivity seems to be a bit out of place. It must be understood that this level could have been happened upon one of three different ways. First, this level could have simply been chosen by an individual, thus skipping the previous levels (as I mentioned before, these levels are not necessarily chronological).
Secondly, this level could indeed have been the logical outcome of level five. Those who indulge themselves in something that brings ultimately no satisfaction plunge themselves into despair. When something you thought would fulfill you leaves you feeling empty, despair quickly sets in. Chasing after satisfaction in a world devoid of God's design is tiresome. Thus apathy comes as a result.
Thirdly, this level could have come as a reaction to the ‘champions’ of human rights in the level prior. If you scream at a crowd of people, some will listen, others however will cover their ears. This level could be then those who are covering their ears from the noise of liberals and conservatives both yelling at the top of their lungs. Laziness takes over, and, rather than seeking out the truth, individuals who are tired of being oppressed by the standards of others take on an apathetic, “I don’t care.” approach. The danger of this level is that guilt after sin, or knowledge of sin, hold no sway upon an apathetic mind. Apathy is intensely difficult to overcome, from within or without.
~~~~
The third and final part of this series will cover levels seven through ten.
~~~~
Speculative Dialogue on Progressive Depravity
Part Two
Level Three- Passive Disobedience
Person’s at this level also commit acts of disobedience (against a perceived cultural expectation), only in this case it is without the nagging hassle of guilt. This type of person doesn’t seek out evil, but at the same time, "You've got to do what you've got to do." If you’re late to work, speed. If you’re in a bind, lie. If you’re short on money, steal.
These type of people generally go under the radar. Commonality, by definition, doesn‘t make any headlines. In this stage, a vague sense of guilt acts in a restraining sense. In other words, no new sin is sought out, but current sin isn’t eradicated, because, we think, “I‘m no worse than the next guy”. This level is deceptively perpetrated as harmless. Lies are now labeled with adjectives like, ‘little’, and ‘white’, and soon, what was once forbidden is expected. Boredom with universality of experience brings the longing for something new.
Level Four- Rebellion without a Cause
Unlike the previous level, persons in this level seek out sin. The objectivity of the wrong pursued is not as relevant as the pursuit itself of perceived misconduct. On February 20, 2007, an article was posted on CNN.com with the headline, Teen 'sport killings' of homeless on the rise. The article tells of Nathan Moore and two of his teenage friends who beat a homeless man, Rex Baum, to death. This type of senseless evil is baffling. It at least makes sense that someone might ‘rob from the rich to give to the poor’, but this is more like murder the poor to, well, murder the poor.
Guilt in this level is beginning to fade rapidly. The necessary presence of guilt, in order to facilitate morality, cannot be stressed enough. Condemnation by others from without, pales in comparison to the prick of one’s own conscience from within. When the component of guilt begins to fade, morality begins to rapidly fade with it.
Level Five- Vigilante Rebellion
Rebellion in this stage comes in the form of those who claim to be championing the 'rights' of mankind. (e.g. Abortion rights movements) Unlike the previous level of rebellion, which is characterized negatively by the "mainstream", the charismatic zeal displayed by these activists is usually viewed by outsiders with a certain level of respect. It is for this reason that these type of movers and shakers of society are often viewed by the masses with quasi sympathy. Those who would dare to challenge the “rights” of mankind are viewed as exclusive elitists, therefore, society just lets it slide.
This level, though largely tolerated, is inherently dangerous for two reasons. First, it is contagious, thus it is, almost by default, a larger movement. Secondly, those at this level honestly think that they are doing what is best for society. It could be argued that since those in this level think that they are right, it isn't very evil (at least not on a scale of 1-10). On a subjective level, I would be forced to agree (and in all honesty, for most of the previous levels, I have argued from a strictly subjective standpoint). However in this case, the objective depravity of the issue, coupled with the complete absence of guilt forces me to categorize this type of behavior as worse than the previous levels.
Level Six- Apathetic Morality
This level can be summarized in three words, “I don’t care.” Every possible challenge presented before an apathetic mind receives the same rehearsed, “I don’t care.” The ironic thing is that the person in this level might be willing to admit that they are wrong, but the problem is, (surprise, surprise), they don’t care. Apathy saps the energy and feelings necessary to motivate, and activate the conscience.
The sudden switch from zeal and passion (in the previous level), to apathy and passivity seems to be a bit out of place. It must be understood that this level could have been happened upon one of three different ways. First, this level could have simply been chosen by an individual, thus skipping the previous levels (as I mentioned before, these levels are not necessarily chronological).
Secondly, this level could indeed have been the logical outcome of level five. Those who indulge themselves in something that brings ultimately no satisfaction plunge themselves into despair. When something you thought would fulfill you leaves you feeling empty, despair quickly sets in. Chasing after satisfaction in a world devoid of God's design is tiresome. Thus apathy comes as a result.
Thirdly, this level could have come as a reaction to the ‘champions’ of human rights in the level prior. If you scream at a crowd of people, some will listen, others however will cover their ears. This level could be then those who are covering their ears from the noise of liberals and conservatives both yelling at the top of their lungs. Laziness takes over, and, rather than seeking out the truth, individuals who are tired of being oppressed by the standards of others take on an apathetic, “I don’t care.” approach. The danger of this level is that guilt after sin, or knowledge of sin, hold no sway upon an apathetic mind. Apathy is intensely difficult to overcome, from within or without.
~~~~
The third and final part of this series will cover levels seven through ten.
Friday, January 16, 2009
Speaking of Evil (Part 1 of 3)
The following is the first in a three part series on the topic of, what I've called, "Progressive Depravity". I wrote this article a couple of years ago, and it's current form is the product of numerous revisions.
~~~~
Speculative Dialogue on Progressive Depravity
Part One
Assumptions and Common Ground
The truth is, we all have basic presuppositions concerning morality. When we talk about evil, it immediately becomes complex because of the sheer plethora of opinions. However, universal agreement about the finer details of morality need not be present in order for coherent discussion to take place. The value of human life (in a Christian framework - because that person is created in the image of God), and treating others as you would like to be treated are two basic principles which can be assumed for the sake of dialogue.
Depravity and Progression
Human experience teaches us that one naturally gravitates towards evil. It is easy to become angry, lose your temper, and say something you, in an otherwise normal state of mind, would not usually say. It takes hard work to stay calm, remain in control, and think before you speak. Not only do we gravitate towards evil, we also find ourselves progressing into deeper levels of sin. However, is one sin worse than another? I maintain that the difference is not one of essence, but rather, one of progression. Progression from an involuntarily sensitive conscience to a voluntarily seared conscience. Thus, certain sins, may in fact, be worse than others. Though the fact of evil is present in any sin, the level of depravity varies greatly. For the sake of speculative dialogue, I propose ten 'levels' of hardness experienced during one's progression into depravity. These levels, are not necessarily chronological, that is, one level does not always follow the prior. They are, however, progressive, that is, each level is more depraved than the one before. The (1) intent of the perpetrator, the (2) level of guilt experienced, and the (3) perceived possibility of moral reform are three of the main factors which influenced the formation of the following ten levels.
Level One- Morally Ignorant
At this level are those who are honestly unaware of the rightness or wrongness of a particular issue. Like a tourist, who unknowingly breaks custom in a foreign country, so too is the individual who unknowingly commits evil. Under this level, is a child who, unawares of the danger, touches a hot stovetop. Although it would be unfair to say that the child sinned, it would be equally unfair to say that the child acted in a way consistent with the way things ought to be. Thus, although the action committed was wrong (better: not good), the child himself was not guilty of wrongdoing. This level exists more as a functionally necessary stepping stone.
Level Two- Disobedience with Guilt
The person in this level feels immediate remorse after wrongdoing. This type of person would be viewed as someone who lived by their ‘principles’. Objectivity of their scruples aside, the point here is that these people have standards, and they actually try to follow them. Since an operative moral framework is in place, a certain amount of guilt is to be expected. Pressure to obey from within (guilty conscience), as opposed from pressure to obey from without (cultural norms), is an important aspect of this level. This type of person would be quite responsive to a call for moral reform. In fact, it is quite possible that this person would turn from their sin without the factor of third party confrontation.
A personal experience of mine when I was a child classically illustrates this level. Growing up, my parents always gave me and my brothers Easter baskets on Easter morning. For some odd reason, the candy in my brother’s Easter basket seemed so much better than the same candy in mine. I began to crave my brother’s candy, and so, when he wasn’t looking I grabbed a piece of his candy out of his Easter basket. The guilt I felt in my mind adversely affected the clarity of my senses, and I was so nervous of being caught that I threw the candy into my mouth wrapper and all! Disobedience - consequences - guilt - reform.
~~~~
Part two of this series will cover levels three through six.
~~~~
Speculative Dialogue on Progressive Depravity
Part One
Assumptions and Common Ground
The truth is, we all have basic presuppositions concerning morality. When we talk about evil, it immediately becomes complex because of the sheer plethora of opinions. However, universal agreement about the finer details of morality need not be present in order for coherent discussion to take place. The value of human life (in a Christian framework - because that person is created in the image of God), and treating others as you would like to be treated are two basic principles which can be assumed for the sake of dialogue.
Depravity and Progression
Human experience teaches us that one naturally gravitates towards evil. It is easy to become angry, lose your temper, and say something you, in an otherwise normal state of mind, would not usually say. It takes hard work to stay calm, remain in control, and think before you speak. Not only do we gravitate towards evil, we also find ourselves progressing into deeper levels of sin. However, is one sin worse than another? I maintain that the difference is not one of essence, but rather, one of progression. Progression from an involuntarily sensitive conscience to a voluntarily seared conscience. Thus, certain sins, may in fact, be worse than others. Though the fact of evil is present in any sin, the level of depravity varies greatly. For the sake of speculative dialogue, I propose ten 'levels' of hardness experienced during one's progression into depravity. These levels, are not necessarily chronological, that is, one level does not always follow the prior. They are, however, progressive, that is, each level is more depraved than the one before. The (1) intent of the perpetrator, the (2) level of guilt experienced, and the (3) perceived possibility of moral reform are three of the main factors which influenced the formation of the following ten levels.
Level One- Morally Ignorant
At this level are those who are honestly unaware of the rightness or wrongness of a particular issue. Like a tourist, who unknowingly breaks custom in a foreign country, so too is the individual who unknowingly commits evil. Under this level, is a child who, unawares of the danger, touches a hot stovetop. Although it would be unfair to say that the child sinned, it would be equally unfair to say that the child acted in a way consistent with the way things ought to be. Thus, although the action committed was wrong (better: not good), the child himself was not guilty of wrongdoing. This level exists more as a functionally necessary stepping stone.
Level Two- Disobedience with Guilt
The person in this level feels immediate remorse after wrongdoing. This type of person would be viewed as someone who lived by their ‘principles’. Objectivity of their scruples aside, the point here is that these people have standards, and they actually try to follow them. Since an operative moral framework is in place, a certain amount of guilt is to be expected. Pressure to obey from within (guilty conscience), as opposed from pressure to obey from without (cultural norms), is an important aspect of this level. This type of person would be quite responsive to a call for moral reform. In fact, it is quite possible that this person would turn from their sin without the factor of third party confrontation.
A personal experience of mine when I was a child classically illustrates this level. Growing up, my parents always gave me and my brothers Easter baskets on Easter morning. For some odd reason, the candy in my brother’s Easter basket seemed so much better than the same candy in mine. I began to crave my brother’s candy, and so, when he wasn’t looking I grabbed a piece of his candy out of his Easter basket. The guilt I felt in my mind adversely affected the clarity of my senses, and I was so nervous of being caught that I threw the candy into my mouth wrapper and all! Disobedience - consequences - guilt - reform.
~~~~
Part two of this series will cover levels three through six.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)