Christianity, properly grasped (and I personally fail in this all-too-often) is pure choice.
There is no compulsion; because we can affiliate with God only voluntarily; as love must always be voluntary (else it is not love).
So there is no compulsion to join with God in His creation - only the natural consequences that flow from our choices.
Many people over the past two-plus centuries have rejected Christianity outright, because they experienced and regarded it as necessarily a package of choices mandatorily backed-by coercive compulsions.
While this rejection may merely be an excuse for sinning; rejection has been felt most deeply by those of romantic disposition; those who felt and valued their freedom, their creativity, and personal love; and who intuitively opposed any attempt at external compulsion - whether of motivation, thinking, feelings, purpose...
They rejected the reality of the Christian understanding of God as a personal creator; because they could not believe that any loving person would relate to us as an absolute tyrant demanding obedience or else.
Thus they rejected (variously) the Christian reality of God and creation (choosing instead determinism), the personal nature of God (choosing instead abstraction), or the goodness of God (choosing instead power to satisfy need or pleasure).
We (here and now) need to ignore centuries of misrepresentation and manipulation; dig-down to the root of reality; and recognize that the essence of Christianity is - and always has been - the opportunity to choose or not to affiliate our-selves with God's creative will - in Heavenly life eternal.
**
If you don't want it - then just walk away. We Christians ought not to try and stop you.
What we can and should try to do (especially if we love you) is clarify just what is on offer when Jesus made-possible resurrection. That isn't easy, and is impossible unless you want to know, and will therefore (really) listen.
But if resurrection and the eternal life of loving creation really is not for you, if your preferences lie elsewhere - then that's that.
It's your decision. That's what you need to grasp.
You cannot avoid it, you have not avoided it. Either you make this decision your-self; else you instead decide to let someone else (or some-thing else) make the decision for you.
And if you make the choice on the basis of what I would regard as too little thought or a lazy failure of imagination; then it was your choice to do behave thus.
From my Christian perspective; the choice is, ultimately, inescapable; because it comes to everyone after death (if not before): the choice of yes or no to joining your purposes with God's.
Forget about compulsion, if you can - set it aside!
Think of it as pure choice; as purely your choice.
9 comments:
I sometimes refer to Christianity as the religion of freedom, but it is obvious most people do not see that.
Freedom because, as you note, it must be freely chosen. Personal agency is key. Christianity ceases to be Christianity the second any form of coercion or compulsion comes into the picture, including any sort of perceived coercion or compulsion from some church or tradition or from God.
Also, freedom because contrary to modern belief, Christianity, properly understood, frees individuals from the constraints of fear and unreality and orientates them toward truth via personal agency and love working in harmony with the creative freedom of the divine. Freedom because being a Christian entails great responsibility.
I would go as far as to say that true Christianity transcends choice -- if not initially, then further down the line. The free will doctrine of needing to choose between two imposed options -- in and of itself a form of compulsion -- dissipates, and one begins to know and understand the right course without constantly needing to choose.
@Frank - Yes, you are correct that choice has undesirable connotations if regarded as the essence of free agency and the Christian life.
But for this specific act, "choice" seemed clearer, being more concrete than "freedom".
Whatever one says (no matter how valid) brings possibilities of misunderstanding; but, on the other hand - I know from my own experience that sometimes a slightly different, clear and short, expression of some significant issue; can just "catch" a reader. Indeed, that's usually how I have made a breakthrough in understanding.
That's why I think it is potentially useful to re-explore fundamental questions, coming at them repeatedly and from multiple directions.
@ Bruce - To be clear, I wasn't being critical of your usage of choice. Choice is an unavoidable and significant aspect of our mortal experience, and I think when people become Christians, they equate it with making a choice. I also think the doctrine of free will has its uses and purposes (for lack of a better way of putting it), as long as the compulsion/punishing God factors are removed.
I sense that a big part of mortal life involves experiencing something beyond merely making yes-or-no, good-or-evil choices. A state where you just know you are thinking/acting in the right way because you manage to align with God's purposes without having to consider any alternatives. I think we can experience this intermittenly in mortal life, but I don't think it can be maintained, parlty because of our own weaknesses, partly because of the neverending pressure of external compulsion coming from all angles coaxing us to do this, not that.
I can't imagine things like the free will doctrine having any place in Heaven. Free of death and free of evil, we will also be freed from choice. We will know what to do and do it in perfect freedom. Instead of agonizing over the right course, or being tempted by evil, we will get to "live" what in mortal life we could only sample.
The choice of everlasting life will likely not be a choice but a free act for those who have experienced "no choice freedom" in intermittently in mortal life. At the same time, those who have spent their lives agonizing over choices might get stuck pondering their options when it comes to choosing resurrection.
Side note: One thing I have noticed about Jesus in the Gospels, particularly the Fourth, is that he doesn't spend a great deal of time pondering choices or even making choices. Everything he does and says emanates from his freedom -- that is, his alignment with the Father.
Many people have rejected Evangelical Christianity for its authoritarian language. They reject using concepts like "excuse for sinning" which have literally no meaning outside the White Anglo-Saxon Protestant bubble.
When one enters these words into an Internet search engine I would expect a broad variety of religious opinion from various religious authorities about "excuse for sinning" from at least some Abrahamic traditions, who draw from the same foundational concept of sin from the Hebrew bible.
However the only search results I get all stem a from a specific American variant of Evangelical Christianity. This is no accident. Nobody else on this planet uses these words. They were invented by an authoritarian tradition grounded in English Puritanism.
@Malcolm R - I don't think I understand your point.
I was not using a standard phrase; I was instead using "excuse for sinning" as a purely conceptual short-hand, which applies to all of Christianity at all times and places - and presumably many other religions too.
Off topic, but a response to Frank: thank you for the comments on choice. I have felt for a long time that God (and, hence, reality) doesn't offer us ethical dilemmas. In reality, the right thing to do is usually completely obvious, however non-obvious the *consequences* of doing the right thing might be.
> purely conceptual short-hand, which applies to all of Christianity at all times and places
But the general population one addresses with the Gospel recognizes and associates specific terminology with authoritarian strains of WASP. This is a connection one can't avoid when using language for communication.
For example, my search engines can't find one single occurrence of the conceptual short-hand on the website of the Vatican. They seemingly don't use it at all.
> and presumably many other religions too
This is what one would expect when looking at the term using the Google Books Ngram viewer. But it doesn't come up with anything in church history except one 19th century translation of John Chrysostom.
So this is not a generally known concept people outside the WASP bubble recognize. They reject it, because it qualifies as cult language.
@Malcolm - It seems like absolute nonsense to take three words from my post, regard them as a slogan, and build such an edifice of inference upon them - especially considering I am English, not American.
Please consider the subject closed!
@Crosbie - I agree. Frank's general point is a very important one. He's been writing a good deal of the real nature of freedom in the past years, and his reflections are well worth understanding and thinking-about.
Post a Comment