An Accident of Language (and other follies of the times)

Sundays are a good day for me. Church in the morning, parents' house in the afternoon, and in the evening I head to a friend's house for dinner and lively conversations and debates with whoever else shows up. Those evenings are a mixed bag, mind you. Sometimes we have a lot of people with great discussion, a few people with so-so discussion, and vice versa. Two Sundays ago, we had a great discussion with an average sized crowd. We talked about the Boston Bombings, which  led to a debate on the death penalty. Many interesting arguments were made for and against, but in the end no real conclusion or consensus was reached, though many thought-provoking questions were asked.

The next Sunday, I ran into a friend of mine who had been at that discussion but had left early and thus missed the end (or non-end). He asked me how it went after he left, and I relayed it to the best of my memory, including the part about us walking away with more questions than answers. He smiled at that part: "I like leaving with questions rather than answers. It helps create a sense of wonder about things." I smiled back, hesitated, then replied: "Yes, but I like answers too."

Now, my friend is a very kind and thoughtful young man, so I understood what he was saying. It's something I've dealt with before (multiple times, actually): in a world of too much systematization, where every "t" is crossed and "i" dotted and no angle is left uncovered or stone unturned, things tend to lose all life. It is the dead, predictable boredom of the machine, with everything in order and functioning exactly as it should and exactly as it always has without deviation, now and forever, amen. Life, however, and all good things (i.e., beauty, love, joy, etc.), are not mechanical. They are full of spontaneity and surprises, bursting forth in newer and newer manifestations, like an endless array of fireworks ascending higher and higher with different colors and shapes all along the way. It is exciting. It is enthralling. It is, indeed, wondrous.

However, as sympathetic as I am to such an image, I could not help but protest to my friend. I believe he has committed an error many commit today. They confuse "wonder" with "wonder," which you also probably did just now. It's not really anyone's fault that this happens; it is an accident of language that the two words look, sound, and just feel the same. But they are not the same, and the distinction between them is vitally important to understand and maintain.

Allow me to explain this distinction. "Wonder" has (at least) two primary definitions. The first is a sense of awe caused by coming into contact with something sublime, i.e., something too great and grand for you to fully take in. We have all experienced this type of "wonder": staring at the stars, listening to a piece of music, looking out across a mountain range at dawn, watching the clouds painted by the setting sun, or even those incredible, incalculable moments when we come in contact (however minor or subtle) with the presence of God. Whatever the case or incident, we have all been struck by an overwhelming sense of humility and respect for (and joy in) the grandeur of something truly great and greater than us. In those moments, it does not matter that we cannot fully comprehend it; indeed, its incomprehensibleness is all a part of the pleasure. That is the first definition of "wonder".

The second definition is related to the first, but is also much different. It is a sense of questioning and/or confusion caused by coming into contact with something confusing. We have all experienced this too: an unsolvable puzzle leaves us perplexed, an unanswerable charge leaves us bewildered, and an unfixable problem leaves us frustrated. In those moments, we wonder, wonder how something like this could have happened? what are to do or say now? what does this mean for my loved ones? where was/is God in all this? how could He allow such things? Those moments leave us in pain and in doubt and (above all) desiring answers, and that is the key distinction between this definition of "wonder" and the previous one. In the former, you have no desire for answers, or even for further questions; the beauty of the mystery is its own satisfaction, its own answer. In the latter, however, you only desire answers as you spiral out into further questions; the terror and darkness of the mystery leaves you starving for a solution, for solid ground to land on.

This is where the error comes in: people do not maintain that distinction. They assume that the latter definition of "wonder" (i.e., the posture of confusion and questioning) necessarily leads to the former definition (i.e., the posture of awe and joy). I will admit that questioning can eventually, through many twists and turns and toils and snares, lead to awe, but it is never "necessarily" the case. In fact, questioning can have the exact opposite effect. It can harden into an arrogant skepticism that sees questioning as the only stable thing, the only true thing. That is the danger that I was trying to avert (however poorly) in the mind of my friend. It is a danger I try to avert wherever I can.

We deceive ourselves on a crucial point: we conflate together the two separate, distinct definitions of "wonder" and thereby unconsciously equate them. Thus, we believe questioning "helps create a sense of wonder about things." It is here that awe can (and often does) become a cloak for doubt. To be frank, this is an error that I absolutely hate to see happen, and it happens everywhere. It is fashionable even in many Christian circles to see questioning and the doubts they bring as some sort of unassailable good. From David Dark calling it "sacred" to Rob Bell calling it "central to Christian experience," there is a certain naivete floating about, rooted in the assumption that questioning invariably leads to awe. Such a stance is nonsense, of course. Awe is not a result of questions but rather their answer, the answer that silences all questions, for "wonder" (i.e., awe) is an end of questioning. There is nothing left to say; any and every word would be inadequate to capture or express what you are feeling, thinking, seeing, experiencing.

That is a fact sorely missed by many: it is the answers that create awe, not the questions. That is what the Bible reveals. Does it have questioners? Of course, but that is not where their awe came from; it came from the answers they either remembered or received. Think of the Psalms. Lots of despairing questions crop up, but they are never the end of the matter. There is always an answer, and that answer is always a return to the truth of who God is in spite of our situation. Job was the same way. He piles up questions upon questions that no one (save Elihu) could answer. Then God shows up, and His answer is a revelation of the truth about Himself. It answers none of Job's questions, and yet somehow it answers all of them, and Job's response is silence and awe: "Now my eye sees You." The answer was the truth, and the truth set him free, including from questions.

And that is the key: truth is the only source of awe, of wonder, because truth is a wild and wonderful thing, as wild and wonderful and alive as God. Yes, He is beyond our feeble categorizations, but those who think they can outstrip Him by piling up questions upon questions in the hope of overcoming Him with numbers and bigness will never approach His depth and breadth and height and width. To understand this in your own life is the actual "central Christian experience": not to question, but to let our questions and moments and circumstances and experiences and every aspect of our lives drive us deeper into our deep God, to step further into His presence, to come in more intimate contact and communion with His incomprehensible Being. To be there and continue there is not to question but to cease from questions, to become speechless, to place your hand over your mouth in wonder at the awesome answer that is God.

-Jon Vowell (c) 2013

Atheistic Mysticism (cultural apologetics by an orthodox rebel)

First of all, watch this video:

Second of all, ponder this: Strip away the reassuring baritone tones of the narrator, the indie documentary cinematography, and the emo piano music, and what is really being said here? That stars are made of a certain kind of matter, and that matter was involved in our evolutionary process.

Thus, we have a tangential material connection to impersonal balls of burning gas.

Maybe I'm just dense (like a star), but I missed the part where this gives my life meaning.

-Jon Vowell (c) 2012

The Humility of Agnosticism (and other follies of the time)

The majority of the modern West is under the sway (in varying degrees) of the cult of agnosticism, and it is being vigorously intoxicated by its most ridiculous tenet: that the agnostic is the humble man while the dogmatist is the height of arrogance. What makes this tenet ridiculous is that it is an absolute lie. It is the man who makes dogmas, who makes assertions, who comes to conclusions and certainties, that is the humble man; for he sees his dogma and assertions as something that not only binds the world but also himself, being a part of the world. The agnostic, however, may not burden humanity with their beliefs, but neither do they burden themselves, being a part of the world.

I will never understand the utter saturation and infatuation of our culture with the notion that agnosticism equals humility when the reverse is so obviously the truth. Even an atheist, with their own arrogance in tow, is not the least bit arrogant towards their materialism. That is something to which they bow in humble reverence and religious faith as a truth outside of themselves, a truth that is true regardless of how or what they (or any one else) feel, think, or will. The same is true of the believer in regards to God. The agnostic, however, will be bound to nothing except their own will. Theirs is a religion of the exalted self, the deification of subjectivity. There is no law or authority other than themselves, a position that serves as the very definition of arrogance. Humility, however, recognizes and submits to a law and authority outside of itself. If you would be a person of humility, then you must be a person of credulity.

Of course, when I speak of "agnosticism," I am not speaking of honest people with honest doubts and honest questions that need honest answers. Those people are (perhaps whether they know it or not) searching for a truth to bind themselves to; they are mystics seeking to become believers, and thus they exude humility. Thus, when I speak of "agnosticism," I am not referring to those noble souls; rather, I am referring to the professional agnostic, the intellectual prig who sneers at people of faith (both the atheist and theist) and calls that sneer a mark of humility. The truth is that this professional agnosticism is merely a matter of arrogance, an arrogance produced by either (at best) philosophical laziness or (at worse) philosophical cowardice. In either case, they refuse to come to conclusions because the consequences are too costly. If you really believe that something is truth (universally, objectively true), then it has an actual bearing on your life, a bearing that the professional agnostic refuses to bear.

-Jon Vowell (c) 2010

(posters provided by Po-Motivators, from your friends at PyroManiacs)

Adapt or Perish (and other follies of the time)

This article by Huffington Post blogger Alex Wilhelm really should not come as any surprise. I mean, seriously: the Huffington Post is a well known repository of inane progressive blather. Still, I find myself raised with what Brian Mclaren would probably call "conservative ire" at the article's ridiculous statements and conclusions made under the guise of the weak doctrine of egalitarianism.

The article starts out well enopugh, with Mr. Wilhelm stating what is indeed a "fundamental question" facing Christians today: "is it better to fit the church and Christianity to the world, thus keeping the faith relevant, or is it better to mold the world to the faith?" The use of the progressive buzzword "relevant" should probably cue you in to which side that he is going to take (if the very next sentence's not-to-subtle sneer at "conservative, literal Baptists" wasn't a larger and louder clue). Still, the issue he raises is an important one, as it has been the core question regarding the notion of "Christianity and Culture" throughout the ages. Of course, the Church traditionally (and even to this day) believes that its calling is to conform the world to the standards of God by calling all men to the Cross of Christ. Mr. Wilhelm's article takes the opposite view, however. As the article's title points out, Christianity must adapt or perish. Exactly why and how are where things get ugly.

How exactly does it get ugly? Let me count the ways:

(1) Egregious Historical Blunder: "The non-religious of the world will be quick to point out that this is in fact something of a new question, [i.e.] whether the religion should fit the culture or the other way about." 

As per the standard progressive repertoire, Mr. Wilhelm is incredibly ignorant of his own history, both as a Westerner and a progressive. The content and form of Christianity's relationship to the fallen world is not a new question or issue. The question has been around (and answered) since Christianity's inception (Matthew 5:13-16; 28:19-20), and the issue has been raised by progressives as far back as the 19th century (e.g., the students of the "higher criticism"). One can find "conservative ire" as old as Charles Spurgeon (in multiple sermons) or Dorthy Sayers (in her essays) railing against the notion that God's truth must be made "relevant" to suit the transitory whims of the surrounding culture (or as Sayers put it, "conforming Christ to men" rather than "men to Christ"). I must very "depressingly" say that, contra Mr. Wilhelm, there is nothing new under this particular sun.

(2) Outdated Humanistic Idealism: "As humanity progresses around the world, unlocking the science of the universe, time seems to move more quickly. The pace of progress accelerates, from the depressed call of 'nothing new under the sun' to the doubling of human knowledge every decade or so..., a more liberal interpretation of Christian doctrine could make space for science that promises the great, the life-improving, and the new...." 

Speaking with all the relevance and contemporaneity of the 1880s, Mr. Wilhelm seems to have entirely forgotten the twentieth-century (with its World Wars, Holocausts and other various genocides perpetrated in the name of revolutionary human "progress") and seriously thinks that we are any better now than we were fifty or even a thousand years ago. How could anyone be so naive? Yes, we have indoor plumbing and modern medicine. Well done. Nevertheless, it is still a fact of the real world that the generation of Facebook and the iPad still deals with man's inhumanity to man in the forms of genocide in Africa, terrorism in the Middle East, and political corruption and degradation in the West (just to name three). What, exactly has "science" done about these things? What can it do about them? Clearly, Mr. Wilhelm's notion of what is "great," "life-improving," and "new" only applies to the material world, of which we have progressed tremendously. But the human soul is still rotten, as rotten as it ever was; and "science," for all its wonders, cannot change or save it. More often, it simply adds to the problem, giving us new ways to degrade and kill each other.

(3) Bold-faced Contradictions: "...it is not necessary to replace the physical work and words of the Bible.... [This] adaptation of the religion's text and therefore the religion itself...manifests as a firm repudiation of the most odious passages (e.g., how to enslave, when to stone, and so forth are to be disregarded)..... The Biblical passages subjugating women to the back of the bus need to be let go.... The passages condemning people born homosexual as abominations need to be released.... The blatantly incorrect attempts at science and history in the book need to be shut out...." (emphasis added)

There is nothing else to say here, except that Mr. Wilhelm deploys a kind of new-speak typical of progressives: we don't have to literally "replace" anything. We can just ignore it and then it magically doesn't exist (or matter). Thus, we do not replace; we simply efface. I would like to ask Mr. Wilhelm what exactly is the difference in the end?

(4) Vacuous Post-modern Proposals: "[This is] the inherent problem with modern Christianity, and the exact thing that must change: the Bible [as] a ballast [i.e., a stabilizer, that which grounds and balances].... [The Bible can] become a new book via a fresh reading."

Speaking with all the relevance and contemporaneity of the 1980s, Mr. Wilhelm's central thesis (i.e., that Christianity must adapt or perish) is actually an odd attempt at decentering. If the current trend in culture is "a morality in flux" and thus a society in flux (one that cannot be "corralled"), then Christianity must adapt to the flux by fluxing with the best of them. If instability is the name of the "game" that Mr. Wilhelm claims we are so badly "losing," then all stability must be undone, viz., everything that is not in keeping with the times or is offensive to someone else's sensibilities must be jettisoned.

If that happens, however, whence comes Christianity? Does not Mr. Wilhelm realize the consequence of subjecting Christianity (or anything) to the fluctuating and unstable whims of the culture? Obviously not, or else he would have progressed beyond such peripheral issues as "how to enslave, when to stone, and so forth...." Where is your courage, Mr. Wilhelm? Why stop at such shallow waters? Why not throw in some core tenets while you're at it? Or did you not know that many consider the exclusivity of Christ (held as the gospel truth by Christians because of His death and resurrection) to be offensive and out-dated by many (e.g., those who disagree with the doctrine of limited atonement)? Shall we jettison that? What about miracles? Them too? You asked us to disregard our so-called view of women. What about ours view of men? Of humanity? Of the Church? Of Christ? What grounds can you give us for not simply tossing the whole of our theology out the window? None whatsoever if the fluctuations of culture are to be our only guide, and that is the point. This type of lassiez faire religion that you advocate is no religion at all. It simply dissolves in a vat of personal opinions.

Oddly enough (though I'm not really surprised) one of the best comments for this article came from an atheist who put the point plainly: "Isn't 'changing to get with the times' in and of itself contradictory to the premise of a supreme being...? To me (as an atheist), although I disagree with religion in general, the act of changing your religion to keep that particular faith relevant has to be detrimental to said religion.....[D]oesn't that diminish the power that is attributed to that specific deity? I mean how powerful is your faith if you are willing to just change it as you go?" How, indeed.

Conclusion: Mr. Wilhelm, typical of most progressives, succeeds (mostly) in sounding objective and fair-minded, but his errors (as well as his biases) come through with close reading. In the end, his grand talk of "new readings" of the Bible in order to adapt Christianity to the times is nothing more than an attempt to do away with Christianity in its entirety. If Christianity succeeds only in aping the world, what good will it be? Or as Christ put it: "You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled by men." (Matt. 5:13) Mr. Wilhelm asks us (in effect) to cease to be salty. Ah, sir, if we do that, then we cease to be Christian. Perhaps, however, that is what you wanted all along.

-Jon Vowell (c) 2010