The Good News

After a long absence, I return with a five page article entitled "The Good News." It is too long to post in this blog, so here is a link of it as a pdf file:

The Good News

Kierkegaard Quote

A number of blogs have been quoting Kierkegaard lately, which gives me a great excuse to do so once more. This is taken from Concluding Unscientific Postscript, and it is part of a passage in the book that I consider the best of Kierkegaard. Indeed, perhaps the best of prose:

"If one who lives in the midst of Christendom goes up to the house of God, the house of the true God, with the true conception of God in his knowledge, and prays, but prays in a false spirit; and one who lives in an idolatrous community prays with the entire passion of the infinite, although his eyes rest upon the image of an idol: where is the most truth? The one prays in truth to God though he worships an idol; the other prays falsely to the true God, and hence in fact worships an idol."

What can you say about a writer that continues to amaze? This is related to one of his fundamental ideas that religious truth is subjectivity, and quite probably an idea i'll do my best to explore in the near future.

Heaven on Earth

A disciple and his master climbed a very large mountain. When atop, they were able to survey all corners of the earth. The master was wise and old in age, thousands of years of history weathering his once handsome face. He turned to the disciple, and asked: “Look upon the earth, follower, and tell me where is heaven.”

The disciple furrowed his brow in deep contemplation, and then pointed to the sky. The master was clearly angry “No, why must you locate this concept in a place humanity is not? Are you willing to give up on the question that easily?” The disciple blushed a fierce red, admitting his weakness “of course not, master, I just do not know where else heaven could be.”

The master looked upon his disciple with a pity not unlike a man for his slave. “Send your eyes downward, my disciple, and show me a nation that is heaven.” The disciple narrowed his eyes, and investigated the world around him, observing all the nations of the world on the top of this high mountain. After a few minutes, the disciple pointed to a nation that was very rich, very advanced, and had an open political system. “There!” the disciple proclaimed, “Surely that nation is heaven.”

The master cracked a smile, as if he had predicted this very answer. “That nation is rich, but a slave thereof. That nation is advanced, but obsessed with comfort. They are dependent on their machines for an acceptable lifestyle; they spend their days making themselves perpetually richer. Is that heaven, or hell, my dear disciple?”

The disciple was disappointed in himself, as the answer seemed so obvious to him a few minutes ago. Staving off the self-doubt, he looked again at the nations of the earth. After much thought, he came across a nation that was quite attractive indeed. It lacked the natural resources of the first nation, but it was well known as the religious centre of the world. Its populace spent much time in the monasteries, in the synagogues, in the temples. “There!” the disciple pointed to this nation with a determined voice, “This nations is heaven; for what it lacks in wealth it makes up for in spiritual abundance.”

The master’s cheerful expression gave way into a stern face, and he said “Have I taught you nothing, disciple? Pilgrims flock to that country for spiritual enlightenment, the world adores its religious dedication. But is it not all a façade? They worship God in their big buildings, with fancy prayers, with gorgeous songs, and with fiery discourse concerning their exaggerated religious experiences. What this country lacks is heart; they do not worship God with their heart.” The master takes a large breath before letting out a sigh “I ask again, disciple, is that heaven or hell?”

The disciple’s mood turned sour. With all the sarcasm he could muster, the disciple said “well, if you are so wise, tell me, where is heaven?” The disciple then proceeded to fold his arms in defiance, awaiting his master’s response.

The master was intrigued, as he never expected his disciple to give up so easily to anger. Staring into the disciple’s eyes, he waited until the malice disappeared before answering. “Did you ever consider this nation?” The master pointed to a nation that had large amounts of smoke coming out of it. Surprised, the disciple said “This nation? Surely not! It’s ruled by a cruel dictatorship. Look! The people are in revolt, and are dying by the droves. Their bodies lie on the streets, unattended and rotting. That is hell, master! Has your old age taken your sight, as well as your mind?”

The master was unaffected by the disciple’s insult, and continued to speak “Yes, the people are in revolt. They resist a power that is inhibiting their freedoms, killing the people they love, and abusing the least of their brethren. They do not fear death, nor do they fear the thought of their bodies disintegrating into the earth never to be remembered. They die with a clear conscience, for they resisted without resorting to violence. All that they fear is that this dictatorship will continue to destroy what is meaningful to them, and that is what drives them. The required passion, bravery, and selfless love is overwhelming..” The disciple’s jaw dropped, and was only able to mutter “you mean…”

A single tear proceeded to drop from the master’s eye, touching his wide smile “Yes, my beloved disciple, that country is heaven because it is where the saints live.”

--

Dedicated to the brave Buddhist monks who are currently resisting against the military junta in Burma.

What is God to you?

There was a man, gifted with the ability to see into people’s hearts, in search of truth. He travelled the world to speak with the most renowned and spiritual men humanity had to offer. He asked them all a single question, one which he himself could not answer – “What is God to you?”

He approached a famous preacher, who drew thousands of people to stadiums whenever he spoke. “What is God to you?” the man said. The preacher replied in a most harrowing voice “He is our glorious Father in Heaven, who knows all and sees all!” The man became confused, as what preacher who actually believed that God could see all things would privately act in a manner that he deemed inappropriate for public consumption.

Later in the day, he stumbled inside a small archaic church building, and approached an old priest who was sitting in his office. The priest’s warm smile and welcoming attitude endeared all who visited him. “What is God to you?” the man said, greatly anticipating what answer this kindly old priest had to give. The priest, with a smile as wide as the horizon, said “My dear child, God is the benevolent ruler of the world; he is the healer of mankind.” Disappointed, the man became confused, as the gratuitous amounts of evil and suffering in the world belies such a definition.

After receiving his answer and walking out of the priest’s office, the man stops to see a layman kneeling in prayer in front of the altar. The man decided to ask him the question, as the determination in the layman’s face dazzled any onlooker. Interrupting his prayer, the man asks “What is God to you?” Turning his head sidewise with a firm gaze, the layman said – “He is my rock, He gives me strength to do all things!” The man became confused, as this layman was like any other; he relied on himself to accomplish ordinary things.

Before the man could walk out the door, he spies a gentle lady quietly practicing a song for next week’s service. Now willing to ask it of anyone, the man approaches the lady and asks “What is God to you?” Pausing between notes, the lady uttered her answer with a swoon, “God is the love of my heart.” While appreciating the sincerity in her answer, the man became confused, as this lady was a lover of many things, who sought pleasure and was heavily attached to her material possessions.

More confused as he was when he began his journey; the man exits the building feeling no closer to the answer he yearned for. While walking away from the church on a sidewalk, the man spots a beggar ahead, giving shoe shines for spare change. Before drifting past the beggar’s position, the man asks “what is God to you?” The beggar pauses, staring at the man quizzically, and moans “Coins first, answers later!”

The man grasps the loose change in his pockets and hurls it onto the beggar’s rag, eager to get his answer and keep moving. Without flinch or hesitation, the beggar says “God is nothing to me; I would not be able to live with myself if such a being existed.”

Initially shocked, the man was not confused; as it was the first honest answer he had heard all day.

The absurd Jesus: faith healer?

Jesus.. An existential hero? A moral teacher? A healer? A sacrifice to cleanse the world of its iniquity? Forerunner to the movement of non-violent resistance? The first socialist? A prophesied Messiah? A myth?

He is a lot of things to a lot of people. To me, he is all that is left of my Christianity. I can no longer identify with Paul, Christian dogma has left a bitter aftertaste, and it is hard to find the traditional ‘Christian activities’ appealing. To me, his life philosophy is something to strive towards; his commandments and warnings pierce the many layers of human psychology and reveal to each person with an ear to hear what is moral, what is right, and above all what is fulfilling. To me, he is Lord.

I have always understood my Jesus to be concerned with a person’s soul. He is not interested in a person’s wealth, social status, or accomplishments. Indeed, he taught his followers to reject all earthly attachments that are temporary and prone to corruption. He spoke of how hypocrisy, especially the religious kind, makes fools of us all. Any perception of superiority among your fellow man is nothing but a sign of inferiority and hypocrisy. Be humble, and be meek, for it is the meek that shall inherit the earth. Most importantly, be forgiving, for it is our willingness to forgive that determines whether God forgives our many sins.

There has never been a more pure message, and there has been only one who could claim that they lived this life of altruism and love to the end. It makes me angry that the Church today portrays Christianity as a feast for the senses, as financial karma (“give to the Church, and God shall give to you”), and a way to cure physical ills. Faith healing is important to many people, but it provokes a barrage of questions that can’t be left unanswered. Why does God heal some people and not others? Why did God only give the gift of healing to a few chosen people? How come these healers have become rich off their supposedly God-given gift? If God can heal people so easily, and does so, why do so many people still die of disease?

And yet, healing was a large part of Jesus ministry. People came from far and wide to be able to touch his garment, to plead for healing, to heal where the Doctor’s cannot. I have always gleaned over this part of his ministry, and skipped ahead to actions and teachings that is relevant to my life in the 21st century. I couldn’t help but think, why? Why were accounts of his healing power treated as so important to early church that a large portion of the gospels were devoted to it?

The bible mentions how his healing made people realise he is of God (John 9:32-33), and also how the sight of these miracles provoked people to glorify God (Matthew 15:30-31). Both great reasons and I am sure there are many others, but what has struck me is how well his healing work fits in with what could only be described as an absurd life. Indeed, everything about Jesus can be seen as an absurdity: The promised Messiah, ‘king of the jews’, lived as a poor homeless person. He’d feed himself and his followers with corn plucked from stalks located in somebody’s fields, he frequently dined with sinners and prostitutes, and he was sentenced to the most humiliating style of death by religious leaders that lived their lives according to Old Testament law.

Jesus demonstrated how the kingdom of God was completely unlike what the Jews had in mind. They all expected their Messiah to come with an army of angels, to free Israel from the Roman conquerors, and establish a kingdom that no enemy could vanquish. Instead, he had no place to lay his head, he spent his time healing the needy, and reached out to the outcasts of society in love and gentle rebuke (e.g. tax collectors, adulterers, lepers). Instead of discoursing with the high priests, or resisting Roman authority on God’s chosen people, the people saw him teaching to very common nobody’s. What’s more, wherever he went the blind men saw, the lame girls walked, and the demon possessed were speaking very coherent Hebrew. How absurd and confusing it must have been!

2000 years ago, disease was a much greater worry than it is today. Medicine was primitive, life expectancy very low, and everyone was afraid of contracting the diseases of others (Lepers were expelled, often outside city walls, even though leprosy is not very contagious). Moreover, unlike today people often turned to God for healing as they could either not afford doctors or did not trust them. Where Jesus went, people wanted to be healed of something, and being moved by compassion he helped as many as possible. Now that the west has become diseased with a crisis of meaning, can this absurd Jesus offer similar recourse? I hope so.

Abraham and Isaac

When people today read the Old Testament, the focus is on the ethical implications of every story. This provokes difficulties in appreciating the Old Testament, as the acts of God and God’s chosen people so often conflicts with contemporary understanding of morality. The Israelites stoned homosexuals, disobedient children, adulterers, and so forth. Indeed, were one to reflect on the story of Abraham and Isaac, it would seem absurd: Abraham heard the voice of God, telling him to kill his own son, and he was going to do it. Although Abraham had heard God’s call before in his life, if someone were to kill today because Gold told him to, he’d be assumed insane. As Nick recently commented on this blog, just because Abraham was following God’s orders does not excuse the evil he was intending to commit. Abraham was called by Kierkegaard a ‘knight of faith’, but what moral or spiritual lesson could people today learn from Abraham, since God does not talk to people and killing an innocent son would be deemed wrong under any circumstances?

To better understand the story we must examine the context. God had repeatedly promised Abraham that his seed would father whole nations in the land of Canaan, and nothing meant more to Abraham than this promise. Sarah, his wife, was getting extremely old and had not yet produced a son. She was becoming barren, he was becoming impatient, and after God forgave Abraham for fathering a child with one of his concubine’s, Sarah finally gave birth to Isaac. For such an old lady to give birth to Isaac, the child promised by God, it was the miracle of Abraham’s life. Now that God’s promise was fulfilled, Abraham finally felt complete.

God desired to test Abraham’s commitment to God, however, and instructed him to slay Isaac as a sacrifice. The story told in Genesis 22 explicitly mentions how Abraham loves Isaac. All fathers love their children, but Isaac was not only Abraham’s child, he was the miracle child that fulfilled God’s promise. This test wasn’t so much about whether Abraham was willing to kill his son for God (Killing people out of instruction from God was quite common in those times). Rather, it was about whether Abraham would be willing to annul the fulfilled promise that he had waited many years for. Due to numerous reasons Isaac was the most important thing in Abraham’s life, and Abraham had waited most of his life for the promised child. When God asked Isaac back, it was not designed to test Abraham’s willingness to commit an evil to satisfy God, but rather whether he was willing to sacrifice the one thing that meant most to him, the child that God only just gave to him.

For Abraham it would have been quite absurd, God gave the child after many years, and shortly after he wants him back. Since God never used to overturn his own commands, I am sure Abraham was certain that Isaac was going to die, and God’s promise was going to remain unfulfilled to Abraham’s death. Nevertheless, he had an absurd hope, faith, that God would not do this. As Abraham climbed the mountain each step produced a greater conviction that God was not joking. The fact that Abraham had raised the knife, was about to cut the boy’s throat, before the angel stopped him is testament to how resigned Abraham was to the fact that he had to sacrifice everything for God, and yet held faith that the absurd and impossible would occur and Isaac will be saved.

The story of Abraham and Isaac is set in a primitive conception of right and wrong, and yet demonstrates in a most pure fashion a quality of the spirit that is timeless. The story intended to show not Abraham’s moral compromise for God; but rather existential sacrifice and self-inflicted loss. If it was about moral compromise, it would not be much of a test as God often instructed his subjects to commit what we would consider immoral acts. As with most Old Testament stories, to properly appreciate the lessons learned one must overlook the archaic conceptions of morality intertwined through it.

Soren Kierkegaard, in his classic work ‘fear and trembling’, takes this argument one step further and argues that Abraham did nothing immoral in agreeing to kill Isaac. At around 150 pages of beautifully written prose, it goes without saying that if anyone is interested in the story of Abraham and Isaac, it is well worth the read.

The Problem of Evil: An Introduction

I have always been unsatisfied with Christian responses to the problem of evil. One of the absurdities of our religion is that we have an all-powerful God that loves and cares for each person, but will not stop or restrict acts of evil within the world. In a world filled with temptation, suffering, and evil, having a God that is both all powerful and benevolent seems contradictory.

The most common response to the problem of evil, the free will defence, is the most objectionable. A post that is on the website (see: http://www.existentialchristianity.net/problemofevil.html), covers most of the reasons why I believe it is inadequate.

Another common response, the soul making thesis, is marginally better. Essentially, pain and suffering is necessary in a world where every person can develop character, grow in strength and endurance, and perhaps become as loving and self-sacrificing as Jesus was. To a certain extent this is true, as pain and suffering does bring growth in character, and teaches us many life lessons. Also, moral strength can only really be proved and nurtured through the resistance of temptation. Nevertheless, I think most people can come up with a number of examples where instances of evil that has occurred resulted in no soul-making, just needless suffering (i.e. a large tidal wave destroying an island). Both this and the free will defence cannot adequately explain all varieties of unhindered evil.

No one really has a solution, and yet millions of Christians have demonstrated an ability to not let it interfere in their belief in God. The last common response to the problem of evil, that flows from giving up in trying to find a solution, is that since God’s logic, judgement, and knowledge far exceeds anything humanity is capable of, it is ok that we will never understand why the world has copious amounts of evil present. Therefore, we should have faith that God knows what he is doing, and that due to our limitation as humans, we will never be able to understand the reason why he cannot intervene in the world to at least ease some suffering.

While I sympathise with the sentiment behind a faith that goes beyond reason, and a belief in the limitation of human reason, it is not acceptable here. Using as an example the question of whether God exists, the limitations of reason are far more profound, and subjective experience tends to trump philosophical arguments either way anyhow. With the problem of evil, however, all subjective experience leads to the conclusion that evil is indeed a problem for a benevolent God. Life has a tendency to give everyone subjective feelings about how hopelessly absurd the world is, how needlessly violent, and how incapable of moral change societies are. Without subjective conviction or philosophical arguments to fully satisfy the problem of evil, ignoring the question out of God’s higher reason is akin to throwing your head in the sand.

As like everyone else, I do not have a new solution, but it is always a good thing to put this issue into the centre of Christian debate. Our existence within the world is often marked with loss, pain, suffering, and temptation. Reconciling pain’s existence with religious belief is one of the most important existential concerns.

The New Commandment

Mark 3:
1 And he entered again into the synagogue; and there was a man there which had a withered hand.
2 And they watched him, whether he would heal him on the sabbath day; that they might accuse him.
3 And he saith unto the man which had the withered hand, Stand forth.
4 And he saith unto them, Is it lawful to do good on the sabbath days, or to do evil? to save life, or to kill? But they held their peace.
5 And when he had looked round about on them with anger, being grieved for the hardness of their hearts, he saith unto the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it out: and his hand was restored whole as the other.

Should Jesus have healed the man with the withered hand? In a law that was handed from God, to Moses, and then to the Jewish people, this was a prohibited activity for the Sabbath day. I’m sure Jesus disciples were confused; the man who proclaimed himself to be the Messiah, the son of God, was going against God’s law in a very public manner. Jesus not only healed the man on the Sabbath, he got angry at the Pharisees for even thinking of rebuking him for it.

Indeed, Jesus did similar things on a number of occasions (e.g. Matthew 12:1-13). His message was that individual action guided by compassion can supersede any holy law. Love and goodwill is far more important than heeding to religious tradition, and the laws of the land. The hypocrisy of the Pharisees was that they were doing what they saw as right, upholding the sacred Torah that Jehovah himself had given to his chosen people, but in the process committed a greater injustice. In this case it was not allowing the man with the withered hand to be healed, but more explicit examples can be found in the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37), where a priest passed the beaten man on the road because it would have been considered unclean to touch a dead man. And also, with the accused adulteress (John 8:1-11), the men were about to kill the woman for adultery (as the law required), before Jesus stopped them with his famous saying: “Let those who are without sin cast the first stone.” The woman was considered immoral by the law, and yet the act of stoning a person is a far more inhumane act.

All of this will probably sound like common sense to you, but while morality has arguably progressed through the centuries, hypocrisy has not. In the same vein of the Pharisees placing religious law above compassion; when are modern Christians hindered from pure love and compassion due to their religious beliefs? The Church has a terrible record of placing doctrinal purity over moral purity. The Medieval Catholic Church burnt heretics at the stake, led a crusade against the Muslims, and excommunicated anyone who did not yield to their authority. While that does not happen now, division between people of different religions or branches of religions (i.e. Protestant and Catholic) through an air of religious superiority is common. The more conservative churches have a questionable record of tolerance, with racism, sexism, and homophobia prevalent in a lot of church environments. The point is when you consider yourself more moral or religious than someone else (maybe because they are “living in sexual immorality”, or “have ignorant beliefs”), you cannot love your neighbour as yourself; at the most you can attempt to ‘save them from their unrighteousness’ out of pity.

I am reminded of Matthew 7:1-5, where Jesus rebuked the hypocrisy of moral superiority. Whatever religion someone is, whatever beliefs they hold, whatever sexual persuasion they may be, whatever personality flaws a person may have, and whatever section of society they belong to, you and I are no better. As with the case of Jesus and the adulteress, the only action worthy of real moral rebuke is that of hurting another person through anger, hate, or intolerance. We are all human, and should strive to better show our love and compassion to others (Jesus dubbed this the 'New Commandment'), and not busy ourselves with separating certain social leanings as good and evil, moral and immoral.

The Real Golden Rule

“Do to others as you would have them do to you.” (Matt 7:12, Luke 6:31)

These words of Jesus have come to be known as “The Golden Rule”. What many people fail to realise, however, is that Jesus stated this maxim not as the culmination of his own teachings, but as the centre of the Law. Indeed, Leviticus 19:8 tells us to love your neighbour as yourself, and there are those that use this misconceived belief that this is a core teaching of Christ to argue that Christ’s core teachings are indistinguishable to past Rabbi’s. To ‘love your neighbour as yourself’ was recognised widely in the New Testament as the heart of the law (Matt 19:19, Luke 10:27, Romans 13:9, Galatians 5:14, and James 2:8). Christ’s fulfilment of the heart of Old Testament law came in his ‘new commandment’:

“I give you a new commandment: love one another. As I have loved you, so you are to love one another.” (John 13:34, also John 15:12)

The difference is subtle yet significant, and is thus the real Golden Rule to any Christian. Instead of treating others based on our own perception of ideal behaviour, which is so often distorted through negative emotions, we are to treat others as how Christ treated us. Jesus is the example (Kierkegaard called Jesus ‘the prototype’ a few times), and throughout his life called upon people who were willing to follow his example and be imitators.

Because of this, it should not be surprising that throughout all of the Gospels and select epistles (1 John and James especially) Jesus commands his followers to act based on the example he and his father has given them. Jesus has commanded his followers to forgive as unconditionally as God forgives our own sins (Matt 6:14-15, Matt 18:32-33, Col 3:13, Eph 4:32, Matt 18:23-35), to love those who wrong us like how God loves sinners who have wronged him (Luke 6:32-36, Marr 5:43-48), to lay our lives down for others as Christ did for us (1 John 3:16), to serve others as Christ served his disciples (most beautifully described in John 13:1-17 as Christ washed the feet of his disciples with his own hair), and to suffer as Christ did for us (1 Thessalonians 1:6, 1 Peter 2:20-21, Luke 14:27-33). There are many more examples of either Jesus or an apostle imploring us to follow Christ’s example, but the most important point in these verses is how necessary it is for a follower of Christ to follow his example. John wrote in 1 John 2:6 –

“Here is the test by which we can make sure that we are in him: whoever claims to be dwelling in him, binds himself to live as Christ himself lived.”

It could not be any more explicit how the essence of Christianity is the imitation of Jesus Christ, what he taught (ethics, not theology), and how he treated others. As in, Christianity is tied to our existence within the world, making the following of Jesus Christ a primarily existential endeavour. So as we reflect on the real Golden Rule and other teachings of Christ, let us not hide behind 'theological comforts' that we'll all be going to heaven anyway whatever we do (an idea that was equally as dangerous nineteen hundred years ago; see Romans 6), but rather look to the life of Jesus and find in his example an inspiration to continually push ourselves to be kinder, more forgiving, indiscriminately loving, and a true imitator of Christ.

Confessions

It has been quite awhile since i've uttered a long traditional prayer in the privacy of my room, or delved into the Bible eager to learn more about my God, or even been spiritually enriched from a church service. When I grew up I was taught that to be closer to God, I needed to pray regularly, read the Bible often, and attend church, otherwise there would be no growth. I soon realised that my prayers were twisted from my immature understanding of God, the more I read my bible the more I realised how wrong about it I had been, and that Church was doing less and less for my spiritual life as the weeks rolled by. I was right, but I have yet to find a viable alternative.

In my blog I have defined Christianity as existential, as in: imitating Jesus and his social ideals is where Christianity starts and where it stops. The scriptual evidence is overwhelming, but I have yet to fully recover the spirituality that I once had. That is the one thing that separates Existential Christianity from a standard 'do-gooder' philosophy, into following the Lord Jesus Christ.

The more I think about it, the more I realise that I lack the strength. For example, I know very well the spiritually destructive capabilities of capitalism and the consumer society, and yet I still spend more time thinking about the latest consumer item than God or Jesus. The more choice and freedom there is in society, the more chance there is of corruption, and the weaker sides of a human being get dragged to the fore. This is what I have experienced, living in a society full of advertising, the internet, and the supremacy of the market.

When I write about the negative effects of our capitalistic worldview, it is not from a "looking down onto my readers because I know all" perspective I can assure you. If anything, I am begging myself to stop being sucked in, through the literature. It appalls me that the Church condemns homosexual rights, especially when you consider how they often endorse political parties that insist on cramming affluenza down our throats. What is more danger to a Christian? The existence of a homosexual man being treated just like everyone else, or the ever-enduring temptation to buy, consume, spend, and to revolve our life around those three principles. Perhaps it is a teenage phenomenon, or a 'me-only' phenomenon, but nevertheless my spirituality can not co-exist with such flagrant consumerism.

Matthew 6:
19 - Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal:
20 - But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:
21 - For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

Update #1

Over the next couple of days I will be updating the website with some new content. First off is a 9 page article on 'Christianity is an Existential Communication', intended to expand and improve my old blog article bearing the same name. Originally it was going to be the first chapter of a book, but instead I decided to try and clean it up a bit and post it here. Perhaps a new blog post very soonas well.. So check it out:

http://www.existentialchristianity.net

Website and Uni

It is the first week of a new university semester, and the units all look very time consuming so unfortunately I will not have much time for this blog. In slightly better news, the website has gone live:

www.existentialchristianity.net

As of yet not much "new" content for those who have already read everything in this blog, but eventually I will be posting a 20-something page writing on one of Christ's fundamental teachings that Christianity is an existential communication.

The Kingdom of God

What does the “Kingdom of God” mean? I suspect all Christians would give a differing answer, for theories are plentiful. Some say that the kingdom of God was an entirely spiritual phenomenon. Verses such as Luke 17:21, with Jesus proclaiming that the kingdom of God is within you, indicates some kind of spiritual aspect to the kingdom. The spiritual phenomenon is almost always identified as salvation, and being born again. Another idea is that the kingdom of God is everything that belongs to God and will be answerable to him (such as people), and thus the kingdom is God (as the creator) looking over his created kingdom. Others take a more literal and concrete conception of the kingdom, and define it as the coming reign that God will over the earth (known as the “millennium”), following the tribulation that culminates in the Second Coming of Jesus Christ.

There is one last theory, which focuses more on the political and social circumstance of Christ’s sayings, and one that I believe is far more accurate and realistic. The Kingdom of God, for John the Baptist and Jesus Christ was imminent, social, but at the same time was concerned with a person’s inner being. Since John the Baptist’s message was that the son of God was coming, it makes most sense that when he spoke “the kingdom of God is at hand” he is telling his listeners that the son of God will usher in the kingdom of God with him. Speaking of the kingdom of God as something far in the future, or a portion of God’s creation is missing the point of the phrase. Jesus preached the kingdom of God, and it was revealed to Israel through the life of Jesus and later on the lives of his disciples.

This is by no means a thorough study of what the phrase exactly means, but one specific passage stood out to me as revealing Christ’s conception of the kingdom. It is Luke 22:24-29:

24 And there was also a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest.
25 And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors.
26 But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve.
27 For whether is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth? is not he that sitteth at meat? but I am among you as he that serveth.
28 Ye are they which have continued with me in my temptations.
29 And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me;

Here, the disciples are beginning to bickerover which will receive the highest honour in the new social order that Jesus was preaching. Jesus’ response was interesting, as he did not deny that he was seeking to bring about a new social order. Rather, the disciples were rebuked for misunderstanding the nature of the kingdom of God that Jesus was initiating. The kingdom of God is social, and it is visible, but it is not based on temporal power and authority (Jesus gave the example of the Gentiles and the rulers of this world lording over their subjects in their kingdoms.). Instead, it was based on servitude and altruism. Trying to overcome the disciples apparent lust for honour, prestige, and power, Jesus said that in his kingdom the greatest among them shall serve the others.

Jesus himself proved to be the ultimate example of this. The most striking example is when Jesus washed the feet of his disciples with his hair. Found in John 13:1-20, Jesus, the lord of his disciples, showed complete humility and humbleness by serving his followers in this way. Peter’s reaction again demonstrated how the disciples did not understand that Christ’s kingdom was not a typical one based on traditional authority, but on self-sacrifice. As followers of Christ, we are supposed to emanate the kingdom of God as a social entity, one based on love, forgiveness, and humility. Since over the centuries the ideals of Jesus have been separated from the ideals of “Christianity”, the challenge of achieving this is greater now than it ever has been.

Short hiatus

I'm taking a short hiatus for a number of reasons. I'll return on the 16th of January with a new post or two, and also the new website. At the moment the website is technically finished, I just have to rewrite some of the old blog posts to make them more readable.

Have a good Christmas, and remember to visit again mid-January ;)

Jesus under Capitalism

“For the love of money is the root of all evil” – Paul (1 Timothy 6:10)

A sobering warning, and one that is more relevant today than the day it was uttered. Contrary to popular belief, Jesus had quite a bit to say on the economic situation of the society surrounding him. Jesus implored the ‘middle class’ of Jews to see money as a means to an end, a way to earn your own subsistence and to provide food and shelter to their family. All excess of wealth or resources were encouraged to be given to the poor, and to help those who had few. Indeed, how an individual treated the least of their brethren was the only measure of judgment in Jesus’ parable of the sheep and goats (Matthew 25:31-46). The wealthy in society, the ones who horded their gold and an over abundance of luxurious and lavish goods, were condemned by Jesus. Very famously, Jesus had proclaimed that it would be easy for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than a rich man to enter the kingdom of God (Matthew 19:24). Whenever he was approached by men of wealth, he told them to sell all of their possessions and follow him (Luke 18:22-23). The issue of wealth was very clear cut for Jesus, and anyone who had an attachment or trusted in their riches would have to sever that tie before he could follow Jesus.

The temptation of wealth has been prominent in all the ages of mankind, but the creation of free market capitalism has brought about increased money lust in every economic rung of society. At the very least, money has become the means of a new end, that of consumer materialism or prestige. At worst, money has become an end to itself, where people strive merely to expand their now online coffers. The goal of having more money for yourself is one that I dare say most all people have (I am not excluded), and even though real incomes in Australia has tripled since the 1950s, 62% of us believe that we are not able to afford everything that we really need (the logic of that escapes me, since Australia is not a third world country). This radical economic structure that has been instilled in the western subconscious is not a choice, but forces its values on all. Due to the increasing disparity of wealth in all the world today (from America to Uganda), those who are not born into extremely fortunate conditions will have to work strenuously hard in order to cope with mortgage repayments and consumerism and exponentially rising living costs.

Nietzsche is right; God is dead, and we have killed him. The God of Abraham and Isaac has been replaced with a new God, known as the market god: “Although it is a human creation, it acts on us daily- rising or falling, plunging or recovering. It has emotions- jittery, nervous, capricious, buoyant, or confident. It requires sacrifices and promises rewards but, demanding propitiation, is nevertheless beyond complete human control or prediction. This jealous God demands single-minded loyalty and resents rival deities… The Market God becomes the measure of everything.” (Taken from Marion Maddox)

All is not lost, however, for some very bright people have attempted to transplant Jesus to work under this market god, so that the name of Christianity can be preserved. Jesus in today’s 'market Christianity' can serve as a furtherance of our capitalistic goals, or a safety net from the insecurity of the market God. Truly, with the prosperity gospel, which in its number of different degrees of severity is extremely popular, sees people praising the Lord with the belief that doing these ‘Christian’ things will help them become prosperous. The servant of God will become prosperous and achieve more wealth, because those who love God are blessed by God. The reasoning is simple and deceitfully reasonable, but could not be further from the truth. Jesus promised his followers discomfort, no place to rest their head, and especially not wealth. The prosperity that was spoken of by God was not an economic one, that expanded our material goods and external pleasures. Rather, it was an inward prosperity, that gives a happiness and joy that only life eternal could provide to a soul.

Alternatively, Jesus can be used as a counterweight to the extremes of the market. Because the market god can be seen as too insecure and dynamic; and it tears away safety nets so the market god can curse you by sabotaging family and community life. Also taken from Maddox, the market god “has to make Olympian room for another deity, one who brings ‘Us’ a renewed sense of the security the Market God took away. The repressive God of racism, authoritarian ‘family values’ and exclusion tries to make ‘Us’ feel more secure by turning our anxieties upon ‘them.’” The combination of the market god with Jesus in our existence, characterised by an incredibly materialistic lifestyle together with a firm belief in the doctrines of the church, is the philosophy underpinning a lot of the conservative churches that exist today. There is a reason that the religious right is in bed with the republicans, and it is not because of abortion and homosexuality. The freedom of the market releases the market god from the restraints of government regulation (and even more frightening international regulation), and makes a perfect mate with the market Jesus that calms the anxieties of the market god’s playthings.

Severing ourselves from this wealth fixated society is not possible, and even if it were it’d be foolish. The message that Jesus has for Christians is just this, “lay not up for yourselves treasures on this earth.. for where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.” (Matthew 6:19-21) A necessary requirement to following Christ is to rid ourselves from affluenza, and to appropriately identify when our actions and attitudes are serving the market god, and not Jesus.