Category: Uncategorized

Cynical vs. optimistic views of freedom and love

A cynical definition of freedom: Maximizing one’s individual self-expression, not having any guilt or shame or disappointment, having the total ability to control one’s destiny, and having total prerogative to define one’s identity and the meaning of one’s own life.

An optimistic definition of freedom: Doing what we were designed to do, and being what we were meant to be.

This is optimistic because it assumes that we do, in fact, have a purpose and a meaning.

Freedom in a purposeless or meaningless world is ultimately… meaningless. But if God has a meaning and a purpose for our lives, then freedom means living that out.

If we have no greater purpose, then freedom requires manipulating the outside world (including people) to conform to our inner desires. But if God is real, true freedom is conforming our inner desires to his reality. It’s more about our own character development and having a relationship with God.

The pessimistic view of freedom (maximizing self-expression, defining one’s own identity and meaning) assumes there is nothing greater than ourselves. It means the self is one’s last hope.

One has to trust that they have the ability within themselves to manufacture a durable and satisfying meaning and purpose. It’s like saying, “I’m all I have left. I am the light at the end of the tunnel.”

This view of freedom is initially exciting, but in the end is despair. The self is too enslaved, too dependent, too needy, too desirous, and too defined by involuntary nature to manufacture meaning and purpose. This is especially true for the naturalist (who has reduced reality to mere physical nature).

If freedom means defining our own morality and cutting off what that causes pain, then it means the death of love.

Love isn’t morally indifferent: If we don’t love people we *ought* to feel guilt and shame. And when we do love people we should feel satisfied and fulfilled. When we don’t “mourn with those who mourn”, or “rejoice with those who rejoice” — when we are indifferent — we should ask God to change the way we feel. When we fulfill the obligation of love we flourish.

I remember asking my atheist friend Richard, “Don’t you have a moral duty to feel a certain way about other people?” And he said, “No.” I was surprised by how cold he had become. That is no more liberating than permanently losing your eyesight or legs. It’s better to see and feel and know pain.

The same things that “bind” you and help you feel pain help you know satisfaction, and meaning, and function… and love.

In his image

I love this short-hand definition of being in another’s “image”: functioning as he would if he were embodied.

The Faithlife Study Bible:

“The image of God likely [in the Old Testament] does not refer to any specific ability unique to humanity (intelligence, sentience, emotional capacity, free will, etc.). This interpretation results in an ethical problem, since human beings do not possess these qualities equally. Defining the image as the ability to pray or communicate presents the same problem. Likewise, connecting the image of God to the internal makeup of a human being (nephesh [“soul”]; ruach [“spirit”]) does not resolve this issue, as both terms are used to describe members of the animal kingdom. The image also cannot refer to a visible resemblance between humankind and God. Rather, it refers to our creation as God’s image, His unique representatives on earth. In this respect, members of the angelic host are His representatives in their own sphere of responsibility. People are thus God’s agents, functioning as He would if He were embodied. Jesus is the ultimate image of God (Heb 1:3).” (Barry, J. D., Grigoni, M. R., Heiser, M. S., Custis, M., Mangum, D., & Whitehead, M. M. (2012). Faithlife Study Bible (Ge 1:27). Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software.)

I have some quibbles with that FSB paragraph. Capacities and internal makeup are not relevant to functional responsibilities. God made humans suitable to the task of representing him. But the point is still taken: being in the image of God primarily refers to being his embodied representatives. This accounts for:

  • Genesis 1:26–27 — Where the image is immediately associated with having representative dominion over creation.
  • Genesis 5:1–3 — Where Adam fathers Seth “in his own likeness, after his image…” Seth was, in a manner of speaking, an embodiment of his own father.
  • Genesis 9:6 — Where the image again is immediately associated with representative authority to execute capital punishment, as well as the human life and dignity of the victim killed.

One can speak of image as referring to personhood, faculties, and capacities, and even physicality (particularly with 5:1-3). But it can’t simplistically be about physicality, or merely about personhood or capacities. To “embody” another is the big idea.

Jesus is the “image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.” (Colossians 1:15).

May 22, 2018

  1. Being more conformed to the image of God and Christ is a spiritual transformation that even happens as our bodies “waste away” (2 Corinthians 4:16).
  2. There may be other types of creatures that are more in the image of God (defined here as capacity) than we are.
  3. There may be other types of creatures made in the image of God (over other realms) that look nothing like us.
  4. “Image” in Genesis 1 sounds more like a meaningful duty than a superficial likeness — to reflect his rule over the rest of creation.

January 29, 2020

Would you be upset if God made a species of creatures that was superior to you? And that your “imaging” responsibilities were narrow relative to another species who had a broader domain of “imaging”? I would not. I am not equal to God. I am not of the same species as God. God can do as he pleases.

If (and that’s a big “if”!) we found out that dolphins were sentient, that wouldn’t bother me or threaten my theology.

Why *must* humans be the only kind of sentient, relational, emotional, worshipping being in reality?

You do realize, don’t you, that God is capable of creating creatures in his image that look nothing like you? And that he is capable of creating sentient, relational, emotional, worshipping beings that aren’t humans?

We can’t take it all in

We’re not capable of beholding — all at once — all the things worth grieving over, being outraged at, or even being delighted over.

The goodness and badness of the world are a firehose.

We weren’t built to drink from a firehouse.

Only God can take it all in. We’re not God. So maybe we should cut down our Facebook and Twitter feeds to a slow, limited trickle.

You are objectively beautiful

Expressive individualism says in a person, “No one is allowed to tell me I am an objectively beautiful human, not even God. I choose, I own, I decide whether I am beautiful, and in what respect. Everything else is a social construct.”

Christianity says to a person, “You are an objectively beautiful human, made in the image of God, royalty in the highest regard, made for a purpose greater than yourself, cherished by a Creator who gave your life meaning, even if your self-image says otherwise, even if the whole world says otherwise.”

tldr

Writing assignments in school: inflate and expand.

Real life: compact and condense.

Benefits of condensing:

– Our notes/essays are more useful. We will be more likely to revisit them.
– Writing concise summaries forces us to truly understand material.
– Easier to teach to others, and thus more memorable.

Why existentialism ultimately fails

We need meaning outside ourselves, other than ourselves, more than ourselves. We aren’t stable, sufficient, or satisfying sources or manufacturers of meaning.

We need our own stories to belong to a meta Story. We need our art to be a part of a larger Mosaic. We need our music to be a note in a Song bigger than us. Only a relationship with God finally satisfies.

Contrast with the atheist existentialist who says, “We can just create our own meaning and that will be enough.”

“Every prayer is a rebuttal to the ‘look within’ logic of our age. To pray is to acknowledge that we don’t have all the answers in ourselves. We don’t have sufficient wisdom to make complex decisions.” (Brett McCracken)