In a world where there are too many interacting and unknown causes for effects to be predictable from actions; then Good Intentions are crucial... So long, that is, as the intentions are Real (not merely excuses for self-interest or spiteful destruction), and are really-Good (and not double-negations, for instance).
Because genuinely Good Intentions, is a way of describing being consciously on the side of God and Divine Creation...
And because it is only GIs that will take into account how things are working out in practice (which may be very different from what was hoped) and can made adjustments, and will (because genuinely Good in Intent) continue monitoring the developing situation.
(That this is so rare, is indicative of the rarity of genuinely Good Intentions.)
So, real Good Intentions are vital - they are, in this meaning, the only way of doing-good in this world.
Yet if intentions are good only when God-aligned; then genuine GIs are pretty-much restricted to situations when love is the motivator - actual, real love, between particular persons (or beings), and therefore not some generalized abstraction of love.
General but vague benign-attitudes towards individuals or groups, or the favouring of abstract causes - do not suffice.
Which analysis wipes-out almost all (but not all) of what passes for Good Intentions in public discourse.
What is the relevance? Well, it is intended to explain the wrong-headedness of a good deal of the kind of thing that "groups of spiritual people" (whether in a church, or some other society, whether Christian or not) get up to.
For mainstream Christians, this refers to group-prayer, when it it directed to specific personas and worldly outcomes - but when those persons and outcomes are not loved - for instance when they are remote and abstract.
Group prayers can and may avoid such things - but there is a prevalent idea that a group of people can, by pooling their "good intentions" in prayer (or indeed some other form of ritual activity), achieve positive results in the world-at-large - for instance in praying for peace, or relief of some current sufferings.
This is part of a generally "therapeutic" and this-worldly tendency of current religion and spirituality - the basis of which is that suffering is the worst thing, and the best thing is to relieve or (better) prevent suffering...
At the end of which goal, lies a nightmare dystopia of consciousness obliteration, including suicide and murder; done with a "compassionate" rationale. Western civilization is approaching this situation with considerable rapidity.
I think it is worth remembering that thoughts are actions, and thoughts therefore have consequences; so such ideas as group interventions by prayer are not absurd. However, it is not true that groups are more powerful than individuals, nor is it true that the intentions of groups are usually genuinely good.
The point to remember is responsibility.
Who is spiritually responsible for the outcome? The big problem is that groups almost never accept, or even consider, this matter - and (in this modern era) there is apparently no genuine way by which most groups can learn from what happens as a consequence of group intentions and actions.
As usual, the conclusion seems to be that the individual is primary when it comes to genuinely Good Intentions - and (here-and-now) truly loving groups are rare outside of the family situation. As of 2024 in The West; it is nigh impossible for an institution (including a church) to be Good.
And that part of goodness is a continued and responsible engagement with "the loved" - so that what we supposed to be Good does not, instead, turn-out to emanate in evil. We need to love, and continue to love - if we want to do good.
Good Intentions cannot be plucked from the branches of external public discourse - but need, instead, to be derived from our own capacity and direction of love. Only that kind of Good Intention will align us with divine creation, and have the best chance of doing actual Good.
11 comments:
what of artistic pursuits? i find it hard to 'explain' them, by which i mean, i'm fairly sure, since it is a question i've asked myself constantly over the years, that i dedicate myself to them without any other intention, good or bad, beyond actually doing them and putting them out there. in certain respects, it is more a compulsion than a conscious act. i don't do it for personal ambition, but i also don't do it out of love for any particular person (except love poems to my wife, but that is a different category altogether, i believe). maybe i simply fail to grasp what you mean by love, and it's a larger category than what is usually taken for love (but then i'm not sure that category is very useful). but given that i've definitely sacrificed in some ways over the years, if nothing else in terms of time, relationships with real people in order to pursue my artistic projects, it seems to be somewhat at odds with love. so what of this? it doesn't seem to fit, but at the same time i feel very strongly that they are worthy pursuits, and in a sense, aligned with God's intentions for me.
@Laeth - I can't answer for you.
But it is trivially obvious that there is nothing *intrinsically* good in the pursuit of art - no matter how much (real or apparent) self-sacrifice it involves. Most twentieth century artistic activity, including the best, is probably malign overall (and often by conscious intent) even when it necessarily contains considerable good.
Only a small proportion of "art" (in some times and places, none at all!) is genuinely good. I'm trying to understand why.
@Bruce,
while i agree with the assessment about the small portion (maybe not as pessimistically, but still), i disagree about the pursuit in itself: i think it is intrinsically good. i know we differ on a more fundamental point with some bearing here: everything good requires sacrifice, hence, light always has a shadow, resurrection entails death, there is always risk, etc. so i think the pursuit is good, but definitely has a downside (seen quite often) - if, and it's a big if, that is, in fact, what is pursued (rather than fame, money, sex, etc - which is many times the case).
but i was trying to understand how *you* fit the motivation of love with the motivation of creation (it doesn't have to be artistic, exactly, but it is always a different dimension, because it is sacrificing for something abstract, just because it doesn't yet exist, unlike a real person). i think God sacrificed something when he created the world, and i think it's obvious Jesus did too. so it's not that they are necessarily at odds - but that they seem to be different things, with different sources.
but ultimately, of course you're right, i need to find the answer for myself and that's the only answer that will satisfy me.
@Laeth - OK.
I'm not sure what you mean by "i think God sacrificed something when he created the world, and i think it's obvious Jesus did too." - "Sacrificed" compared with what alternative?
Or do you just mean that all effort and choice entails some costs.
@Bruce,
there were surely many alternatives. it's harder to imagine God the Father's trade-offs (though i tend to think of them very much like the ones we find here), but Jesus' are easier - and even some explicit in the Gospels. one thing he clearly sacrificed was, in fact, living with his friends and wife, having a family, etc. thus in a sense he sacrificed love, precisely, direct and personal, for something abstract (the second creation, as you fashion it). so yes, i guess i meant 'effort and choice entails some costs' - but i think that is underplaying it, certainly in the case of God the Father and Jesus, and in a smaller sense, any creative pursuit (as opposed to, say, making money or pursuing fame - which i suppose entails some effort too - so clearly it's not JUST about that).
@Laeth - I would frame Jesus's life rather differently.
I don't think Jesus sacrificed himself (as some Christians argue) but that he was killed early in his natural span and horribly; both of which (I believe) need not have happened - and this was not something that Jesus chose positively; rather these were things that the evil of some Men inflicted upon him.
Jesus could just as well have done his work of making possible resurrection (etc) if Pilate had been able to release him, and he had lived to seventy and had children; and Jesus did not seek to be killed, nor was his "trailing his coat" to be killed (as is evident from his behaviour - he eluded his enemies on several occasions, when that was appropriate).
Yet neither did Jesus put the goal of extending his mortal life above what was best in terms of right motives and behaviours of a wholly God-aligned divine Man. He just did what was right, and (because of the evil of other Men) this lead to his premature and agonizing death.
"Sacrifice" isn't the right way to describe this IMO.
@Bruce,
i think that fails to account for why he did not escape (he certainly could have) his condemnation. it seems rather the opposite to me: he escaped the earlier attempts because it wasn't yet the right time (nor the right mode) - much like he waited to come to Lazarus' aid immediately, but waited several days. i don't think he sought to be killed, but that he knew he had to be. the way i see it, if he had died a natural death at seventy, he would have just been another buddha or run of the mill sage - providing no actual breakthrough. having said this, i think the traditional christian framing is wrong, but for other reasons - the motivation, mostly, as you've pointed out many times. in that, we agree. but i see how the framing of his act has deep implications for how one approaches the creative question.
@Laeth - I disagree - but I've said enough for a comment interchange. I've written plenty about this already!
@Bruce,
yes, indeed, and i am aware. did not mean for this to veer so off course or to drag. apologies.
The – in my experience – overwhelming tendency of Christians to pray for _this worldly_ benefits and avoidance of suffering is another symptom of the extent to which “the church” has all but wholly been swallowed up in the zeitgeist and a contemporary mindset that takes all modern, secular concerns as givens that need to be addressed In modern secular ways. If Christians truly believe in a resurrection and an afterlife that is qualitatively superior to the current life, why the mindset of fear? And why the prayers that appear (excuse the pun) hell-bent on _avoiding_ or postponing as far as possible such afterlife?
When Jesus was faced with imminent suffering and death, we know how he prayed: “Father, take this cup from me; and yet, not my will, but Thine, be done.”
And of course there are many other verses and books in the Bible that point to suffering as a kind of mystery whose purpose and effect cannot be assumed in any given case, but which often point to its redemptive and strengthening function: “Take up thy cross and follow Me.” etc etc.
Others can, of course, counter my verses with many of their own that involve Jesus healing or even resurrecting people. But I would argue that those miracles were performed, not as a good in themselves, but as a way for Jesus to point to himself as divine. And even the further healing miracles performed by the Apostles in Acts were of a similar function: To help convince the world that Jesus was who he said he was.
“And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.” John 20:29-31
Also, the miracles were to show that even with such wondrous deeds – including Jesus’ own resurrection -- many would still not believe, as was explained in the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man. “If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.”
Of course, it can seem churlish and cold to argue that one should not pray for, e.g., healing and other alleviations of suffering. But the modern default assumption that this is what prayer is for betrays a failure to understand what Christianity is really about.
Such prayers also assume that one knows the state of another person’s soul: If God has determined that some trial is necessarily for a person’s growth, learning and spiritual progress, who are we to try to “pray that away”? It is a sort of vicarious bargaining with God regarding a situation we have no real knowledge of. We have examples of the presumptuousness of such attempts: When Abraham had negotiated God down from 50 to ten righteous people in the cites of Sodom and Gomorrah, Abraham no doubt walked away thinking he had done a good deed for his fellow man, but it turned out to be a lesson that we should not presume to interfere in the salvific work at play within other people’s souls. ("If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire." 1 Cor. 3:15)
Lewis made a similar point in The Horse in His Boy about not negotiating others' issues, when he tells Shasta/Cor and Aravis separately: “Child, I am telling you your own story, not hers. I tell no one any story but his own.”
@Daniel F - Good and important points.
One difficulty is that it usually seems counter-productive to suggest to anyone that their suffering (any degree of suffering, even moderate and temporary suffering) has a meaning.
This seems to be a perspective that each must arrive at for himself - and most people become incensed by such a perspective. They assume they are being told that they "deserve" to suffer, or that it is an expression of cold heartedness or even sadism (as sometimes it is!).
(Something similar happens if one points-out that someone is only harming himself, when he burns with chronic resentment about something that happened many decades earlier. This is taken to be taking sides; a defence of the past offence, or the person (or whatever) who did it. But the point is that resentment is an sin against the one who resents.)
Anyway - I am not arguing against palliation of life - but that palliation should not be regarded as a specifically Christian matter. And further; that the larger (indeed eternal) Christian perspective ought to make us consider this mortal life as a phase in our lives, and not the whole thing.
Neither is it Christian to ignore the value of this mortal life - e.g. the fact that Jesus incarnated, and lived c.33 years, shows a value in mortal life.
But the eternal perspective ought to make a qualitative difference in understanding what is most important about this life., what ought to be the focus. We should at least aspire to this - and such aspirations surely ought to be reflected in the subject matter of public prayers.
Post a Comment