What Christians should learn from Hitchens and the New Atheists

Obviously, many of the posts I’ve been seeing on Facebook and Tumblr this morning have been responses to the passing of Christopher Hitchens. I must admit that I have never read any of his books, nor have I taken the time to read any Dawkins. I started to read a Sam Harris book, but it got boring really fast, rather, I should say it became predictable. So, being that I haven’t read any full texts, this post will obviously not be a critique or celebration of his work. I’ve seen clips of interviews, and much like Dawkins, he comes off as snide, arrogant, and suspiciously certain of his existential condition. I am envious of it. I would love a quick wit that can bite just in the right place at the right time. I don’t care to analyze his arguments because they all, at least in general, make perfect sense. It does not take much to realize that what he is saying has value. This school of new atheists, beneath the sensational distractions that come as a result of their elitist charm, I believe serve a good purpose on two levels. First, they can bring an otherwise complacent christian to assume more responsibility and accountability for his faith. Second, they address the absurd priorities of religions and society at large, and remind us that the our role in the world must always be examined. 

So, what should Christians learn from Hitchens? It’s easy–quit assuming that you can beat them at their own game. There are, without a doubt, brilliant Christian apologists, but to argue, not only for the existence of Christ, but also for the moral justification of a belief in Christianity, is akin to bringing a knife to a gun fight. An atheist isn’t smarter by definition, nor is an atheist more humane, nor is an atheist more rational, an atheist is empirical. (There is nothing more annoying than when a Christian foolishly points how that scientists work on faith as well, of course they do. Although, there is a consequential difference between blind faith and a hypothesis. Blind faith is incorrigible, a hypothesis will be re-worked to reflect new variables, it will adjust itself according to change) 

Christianity is, at a certain point, indefensible. Assuming an apologist can hold their own against a figure like Dawkins or Hitchens, and come back punch for punch regarding the application of ethics or the moral teachings as developed from Jesus throughout the course of history, they will always end at the same point–what it takes to be a Christian (belief in a resurrected Christ, and a God who’s will has been at work since the beginning of time), the exclusive nature of this belief and the potential punishment. To argue for Christ in an arena that is governed by ethics which are attuned to a rationality that reflects concepts of justice and equality in a geo-politically, socio-politically. charged context is an argument which must neglect consequential orthodox tenants of Christianity if one is to remain relevant to the discourse. You can justify Christ’s love, but can you justify his mercy and forgiveness in a world that demands retribution based on anthropomorphic understandings of justice. Furthermore, if we move into qualifications of the church, which in many cases manipulates the teachings of Jesus, well then it just does more to reveal the inherent difficulties in Christianity. 

The sooner we learn that Christianity requires a suspension of rationale, the sooner the discourse can become better focused. Christian/Biblical scholarship serves a role that is better served in the church because these are issues that Christians have to reconcile personally, or perhaps as an institution. The bible holds no water to those who don’t believe, and ironically enough, it serves their interests in a debate. Christians role in the world is pertinent regardless of how it is understood by unbelievers, we shouldn’t need a rational defense. A faith which only arrises after enough evidence has been provided is not faith at all. Those who so humbly request a sign from God are not displaying an honest or earnest desire to believe, they are displaying a desire to remain safely apart self-sacrificing devotion. The minute God’s existence is justified rationally is the minute that all of his teachings submit to rationale, at which point anything can be argued, contextualized, remitted, reformed in favor of a nicer story. Reason, while it is a deterrent to faith, is not the most damning, rather, the most damning deterrent is the threat Christ presents to one’s self-autonomy. 

Let Richard Dawkins write his books, and listen to his points, watch his interviews..all of that is of no concern to a true believer who should have no vested interest in what someone’s own experience led them to say, rather he or she can only assume a responsibility that reflects duties in relation to God, not a society which demands a satisfying reason for that relationship. 

 

“To defend Christianity is to betray it.”-Soren Kierkegaard

naive reflections on Hegel, Marx, and Rebellion

What are we to think of rebellion? There are a lot of initial thoughts that come to mind. I don’t know what I think of rebellion or revolt. It’s on my mind right now for a few reasons. Obviously, the Occupy Wall Street movement is a current reflection of social rebellion, although, it is not quite a rebellion. Also, in my 19th century philosophy class, we’re now reading Marx. Marx was that shining example how one person can change the world. Most people think about Communism right along with their thoughts of Marx, and understandably so. But to understand Marx in relation to Hegel adds, at least for me, a new dynamic to his thought. Hegel was a heavily influential thinker through which Marx developed his ideas. Essentially, without going into any detail whatsoever, Marx took Hegel’s idea of history;  as an expression, or on-going development, of absolute spirit–or the sharpening of our self-determing freedom, and developed it in his own way. Hegel’s thought is a positivist ideal which puts faith in the ability of man to come to truth on his own terms through a process which builds upon each previous generation or era. Therefore, as time progresses, mankind will only become a better version of itself.

Marx put forth his own philosophy based on Hegel. While Hegel remained abstract in his philosophy (i.e. the use words like “absolute spirit,” and “God”), Marx brought the idea down to earth. Marx reframed this process in purely materialistic terms, and as a result, became economic. I think that Marx man-handled Hegel’s philosophy and rushed it. While Hegel’s philosophy was a reflective one (which looked back through history as something that could reveal the truth of his ideas), Marx transformed it and made it something which man could realize, and had to realize, here and now, and move forward. Marx’s philosophy was a design for the future–it required revolution.

So what of it? I think Marx is a perfect example of what man does wrong. The decision to see man, an era of man, a vision of a man which must be created–to see man as the means of his own perfection–requires man to objectify himself in a way that distorts vision–regardless of the psychology which may lead one to believe that he can be mankind’s savior.  Hegel put faith in man to come to higher degrees of truth as an unconscious participant. Marx put the responsibility solely on man which requires a delusion.  While Marx could see the destructive consequence of being alienated from one’s own creativity, Marx’s view was developed in alienation from that Hegelian humility which saw man build upon the truth as an unconscious player, unaware of the larger development of history. To be unaware of the dialectic process is necessary in order for history to develop “naturally.” There is a very fine line. To be conscious of a potential role is to lead that responsibility vulnerable to an anthropological hutzpah which could disrupt the process. Hegel expressed a faith in man, Marx abused that faith and therefore undermined it. Marx forgot, or chose to ignore, that man will always be man.

All of this makes me wonder about the concept of rebellion, and how I see it being played out now. I generally see man as a reactionary species. We allow injustice, we react to injustice and call it an expression of the human spirit, yet we never (and perhaps this is necessary) understand our position holistically. The big picture rarely matters when it should, yet considering the design of existence, one that prevents us from understanding the larger context, all we have is the immediate and our understanding of justice within that very limited context, which can solve problems and lead to better societies, but it will never cure existence. Hegel valued conflict because it led to new levels of spirit (truth), yet we experience conflict in its immediacy and are not afforded hindsight or wisdom until it exists as something abstract or out of context.

So how do I instill passion in my heart for societal change, when societal change ignores the chains of the individual? The psychology of existence is never conquered. We are so creative with self-expression and are constantly in the midst of our plight. Existence is a curse which inspires beauty. We create our own cures, but are incapable of that one important cure. Marx envisioned a world in which philosophy no longer existed because it would be externalized and concrete, there would be no more questions to ask. But from where I stand right now, philosophy will always be required.

“we fought for a decade, corruption and greed
it gave me a purpose, a reason to breathe
but now that it’s over, now that we’ve won
i still sit in my bedroom, alone with a shot gun”–pedro the lion

a protest is no longer a protest

Generally, one could be safe to assume that–

A. If one claims to be a conservative, then he or she would hold that the welfare state enables indolence, and rewards irresponsible behavior.

B. If one claims to be a liberal, then he or she would hold that the financial elite abuse their position and influence for selfish interests.

So there it is. Immediately, with no further analysis, one can notice a problem. One person is reacting to a false narrative which is nurtured by the problematic discourse that infects every major news network in America. Of course, this is just one aspect of a larger narrative which only serves to keep the public entrenched in a “debate” that is not even close to being focused on the heart of problem. Furthermore, that false narrative is simultaneously reinforced when one reacts to it with the predictable ammo which is..you guessed it..the other narrative. For as many types of people as there are in America, how can there be only two pervasive political molds to which we all must fit in order to be taken seriously?

It is a circus (That was confirmed the day I saw Joe the Plumber being given media attention after he decided to run for public office. The media has managed to turn one of the values of America into a mockery, into something regrettable.) Free elections, the right to assemble, the lively debates, and the social media outcries–it is all a part of a posture which encourages a “diversity” which is constantly undermined by the management and tightening of parameters. Distractions are used against us, distractions are given to us, fed to us, to make us feel like we’re taking part in a process which, while it directly affects us, is largely indifferent to us.

A protest is no long recognized as such, it is now a media event. The media immediately seizes upon the distractions and turns those distractions into the issue. A protest isn’t validated by their offering of a solution, the lack of solutions presented to us by those we elect is what validates a protest. A protest is not supposed to appoint a leader, an eloquent spokesperson to articulate a singular point, because there is no singular point. The grievance is a result of a monolithic, ubiquitous, problem which is so widespread it manifests itself into different problems for different people. It is thoroughly entrenched.

A protest is a tool to force attention. So logically, if one’s rights continue to be manipulated, selective, abused or ignored, then one will only resort to more dramatic means to be recognized. A protest is an individual expression, and if that individual can find a community through which he or she can become more visible, then he or she will do so. A protest isn’t a political party, it is not well thought out at its inception, it is disorganized, because a protest is a result of emotional frustration, helplessness, and fear.

We need to quit harping on what is spoon fed to us as if it is our own. We need to get to the bottom of ourselves and realize that we all we are are individuals trying our best. It is not fair, nor is it productive, to gauge an issue or complaint on the worst version of that complaint. I should not assume that every CEO is a thief who does not pay taxes, ships jobs off shore, and buys political support. Nor should I belief that every poor American is poor by his or her own laziness. I shouldn’t assume that a woman on welfare is a woman who uses welfare to support her drug habit. That type of thinking will only enforce that faulty narrative which is only a distraction from the real issue–the manipulation of the political process through financial influence. It is not partisan. A politician is vulnerable to a combination of two powerful forces–ambition and power, both of which are easily led off track by seemingly well meaning influences. Washington exists by its own machinery and answers only to itself. 

Brief thoughts on the “two hopes”

There are two kinds of hope. The poetic hope and the necessary hope. Poetic hope is not disingenuous in and of itself, but it exists in constant danger of of being bastardized. While there exist many occasions of poetic hope in a beautiful and balanced expression, it can often devolve into a show of masturbatory, nonsensical, uninspired, slogan driven drivel. It can be artful, but it can also be turned into a whore, finding its expression in R. Kelly songs or a guidance counselor’s office posters. Poetic hope is abstract and vague, it is imprinted onto the striving individual and expressed loudly for others to here an admire, it is expressed to motivate oneself. It indeed is a pre-requisite of accomplishment, and can also become an avoidance of reality.

Necessary hope remains unseen and consistent. Necessary hope is just that–necessary, it’s vital. It is never displayed in any pre-meditated fashion. One doesn’t put together a speech to express a necessary hope. Necessary hope is expressed in routine and quiet decisions. One’s decision to unromantically and artlessly persist is an expression of necessary hope. To claim hopelessness while simultaneously continuing to pursue a goal, as unexciting as it may be, is a display, as paradoxical as it may be, of necessary hope. I do not find it too out of place to lose hope, and furthermore, the loss of hope is not as tragic as many claim.  I think many of us do lose hope, but still recollect it poetically as nostalgia, as something to encourage and hold onto while one has it.

To lose hope does not mean that one exists without it, it means exactly what it says, that one has lost hope–one has misplaced it. It is still there, swelling in places that aren’t easily recognized as such because it is altogether necessary.

The act of willfully choosing to exist is a display of hope, but it’s often mocked as compliance. Those who mock necessary hope are lazy and in error. Necessary hope hides its goal, rather it protects its goal. One puts with with an onslaught of bullshit and injustice in order to keep doors open for his or her loved ones. Necessary hope engages and never acknowledges words that refer to failure (those terms are not recognized because they refer to a framework which has become void), not out of blindness with drunk ambition, but because anything else would be would lead to a dismantling of purpose, a denial of the role  one did not chose but has the responsibility to uphold-and that is cowardly, selfish, and naive.

 

on and on and on

a type of development

A person’s development is riddled with misguided expressions which occur as a result of ego. There are a number of causes which light fires under many types of people, but the causes are, in so many cases, secondary. Further down that road of development, a new self-defeating desire invades which serves to neutralize distractions in hopes of giving one serenity. Life is an unwinding and we finally put to bed one grand hope to make way for a more humble hope. Our existence, according to the fervor of youth, is a gradual decline which we foolishly hope to reverse; our existence, according to the complacency and embittering of age, is an anti-climatic autumn of beautiful and dormant “once upon a time’s.” It is, on the one hand, something very bothersome and melancholy; and it is on the other hand very peaceful. It’s as if the world is completely altered in the course of a few years. As Regina Spektor sings, “you’re young until you’re not.” Of course, there can be a condescension in claiming old age in comparison to the silly youth, and I do not intend that. What I’m suffering is the awakening to what was always the case, but what I supposed I was above. I am told that we all go through it, but that is not satisfying because, regardless of what I say, I want to make in impact. The more I try to claim about my own state of existence, the more I realize that I am not alone. For many, a solidarity with others could be comforting, for me, it is depressing. I enjoy having things in common with others, but my rabid insecurity demands recognition above and beyond! I wish to recognize community as an ornament, as a claim to my humility (a simultaneously paradoxical claim on my ego). Ahh, it’s truly pathetic, but even so, I can’t become unique. I merely blend in to the room of well dressed people furiously focused on their treadmills.  We’re all the same, some dress themselves better than others, some understand themselves better than others, some understand their role better than others, some know what they want, most don’t.

I think it’s best to refrain from being creative when emotionally inspired.

I think it’s best to refrain from being creative when emotionally inspired.

As humans, we are surprisingly incapable. Of course, there have been many grand feats accomplished by the glory and industry of mankind. It doesn’t take much research to look down the long list of inventions and ideas which have come to fruition as a result of this gloried tenacity and devotion. One can get all teary eyed reading an Ayn Rand novel–a beautiful adventure and victory of the human spirit, the drive, the good willed indifference, and the talent. Our thirst for advances of the mind, new technology, new art, new ideas to assuage human suffering, new versions of the categorical imperative spoken with a tone of regrettable condescension and dismissal of the spiritual, and let’s not forget the reverse of that–the appeal to spirituality for the cure all. (We have tragically forgotten the words of Pascal who gracefully made the case for the inclusion of both reason and faith).

But ultimately, we are essentially incapable. We know nothing of true value, because true value is masterfully hidden from us. True value is transformed to appear absurd and pathetic. The health of the soul is dismissed and made a mockery of. It’s so easy to become dramatic with grandiose appeals for cultural progress–peace, love, fairness to all people regardless of income, race, or faith. But what do we know of peace, love,  or fairness? We know nothing.  Despite our genuine attempts and well-meaning projects, the soul will remain eternally sick.  The soul cannot be cured through global initiatives, and until the soul is healed, these global initiatives will merely be coats of paint, a temporary fix, a reason for investment (All very necessary, and all fleeting). The value of these projects lies within the transformation of an individual. Success is not exclusively linked to achievement.

I’d like to ask what we are celebrating. The trenches of our psychology go untouched by large events that celebrate a good cause while inflating the wrong vessels.

(a narcissistic turn)

And me? I am no cure.

Ultimately, I am a weak individual who sees aspects of myself in everyone. I’m not even me. I would claim that I am not a true identity, just a creation of one, born from the conditions of my development. Each opinion I have can be traced rather easily to some passing event from my youth, or perhaps an eloquent book I read in college.

So therein lies the dilemma–I do not know myself. I do not know what I am capable of. I don’t know my soul. I do not know what drives me. I only know that I am a narcissist. I am selfish in that I seem to equate value and production. I am part of that new generation that can’t see the connection between hard work and success. I am part of that new generation that has successfully merged altruism, fashion, and ego–while leaving the soul out of the picture altogether.

“Every human existence not conscious of itself as spirit, or not personally conscious of itself before God as spirit, every human existence which is not grounded transparently in God, but opaquely rests or merges in some abstract universal (state, nation, etc.), or in the dark about itself, simply takes its capacities to be natural powers, unconscious in a deeper sense of where it has them from, takes itself to be an unaccountable something.”–Kierkegaard (SUD)

developing (seasonal) convictions that always come and most likely go.

Jesus is the opposite of every thing. He is counter to our understanding of love, he is contrary to our understanding of happiness. When we assume he should love, he is just, when we demand justice, he forgives.  Jesus is the opposite of our existence. There is no relating to Jesus. I can not identify with Jesus. He is a reaction against the secular as much as he is a reaction against the spiritual as much as he is a reaction to the Christian. There is no way to understand it because it involves such a radical, stubborn, and vulnerable subjectivity.  There can be only a superficial parallel between you and your peer regarding that which is unable to be communicated–faith. Any attempt and subsequent claim on a systematic floor plan which hopes to explain how Jesus (not Christianity) is to be appropriated into a more diverse environment requires an approach that needs to be de-clawed and tamed..it requires a dishonest approach, one which purposely shields a potential believer and a skeptical public from the impossible ideas.

A true embrace of Jesus can only be an embrace willed by the most intimate and courageous corners of a man’s heart, and once that commitment is made, it is constantly vulnerable and never attains a certainty that can be expressed externally. To speak faith into a discourse is to expose its timeless and dependable liability–your error. Any action which is undertaken as a motive of faith must be protected through a vow of silence of your very personal claim.

When one holds faith in Christ to be advantageous, then it is in danger of being expressed as a boast, an enlightened understanding of the soul and its function. On the contrary, to work out your faith with humility is to reduce your importance and redirect that attention towards that which wills you to act. There should be an arduous attempt to mute your existence and your will. We can not run with the grace of God and arrive at a complacency which focuses on a rationality that aims to neutralize the difficulty and forgive our obviously flawed nature which you or I are not directly responsible for. There can be no apology. To assimilate the Christian faith into a discourse which capitulates its difficulty (specific truth) in order to align it with a more humanistic and ethical understanding (an appeal to populism) is to undermine the true and uncomfortable, uneasy, incomprehensible person that is Jesus.

This is not about focusing on wrath and difficulty more than love and forgiveness, it is more about constantly reminding yourself that you don’t matter in this picture–what matters is that direction which can only be understood personally.

(While this is somewhat paradoxical, I should assert that my aim is to reduce certainty of one’s beliefs in that external context where vultures wait to pounce upon all of that which does not truly matter.)

To be active in your faith does not have to include pre-emptive defense of that faith which expresses itself in an over-compensation– it does not identify itself as part of a privileged and holy collective which claims an exclusive lucidity– it does not express itself as any sort of title because it is a faith which supplants your existence. To make claim on something, to explain, support, encourage something, it requires an awareness that your conscious recognizes, harnesses, molds…and in that way, it is something external, which can be controlled in relation to your identity. Although, after committing that holy leap…what becomes of your identity? If one is alive in Christ and dead otherwise, then where is the gray area? That gray area is protected by your will (by whatever means necessary) and appropriated in order to insulate you from the roll which you so proudly claim to affirm–it allows for distance.

<insert quote>

“The matter is quite simple. The Bible is very easy to understand. But we Christians are a bunch of scheming swindlers. We pretend to be unable to understand it because we know very well that the minute we understand, we are obliged to act accordingly. Take any words in the New Testament and forget everything except pledging yourself to act accordingly. My God, you will say, if I do that my whole life will be ruined. How would I ever get on in the world? Herein lies the real place of Christian scholarship. Christian scholarship is the Church’s prodigious invention to defend itself against the Bible, to ensure that we can continue to be good Christians without the Bible coming too close. Oh, priceless scholarship, what would we do without you?”–Soren Kierkegaard

<end quote>

I was driving today and I was lucky enough to witness that age old representation of God in the sky–when the spotted clouds roll in front of the son so that it peeks through the holes and is understood as an image of heaven peeking through the clouds in all of its glory, bursting forth. Yes, inspirational indeed! Although, the moment those clouds do disperse and make way for the onslaught of the sun’s heat and blinding rays, then we would recoil into some near by shade to gain cover from the discomfort—and that is just as it is with God. We pretend within the company of others to thirst for God, for Jesus, for that intimacy, but just as the unbridled sun is something we seek reprieve from, to be intimate with God is that one thing which we merely claim to desire. To be in front of God is to die, it would be a horror to the truth of our will emerge in the presence of He who can cut us off at the knees and expose us is that same divinity which we require–and it is just that exposure which is the only thing that can save us, because rationality and reason folds back onto itself and evolves to a functioning madness, an insanity which repetitively  hopes for a new outcome after centuries of having faith that our own ideas will turn out differently, might this time be for the greater good! Well, perhaps they are, and surely we will bloat any initial blessing which might happen upon us individually or as a society. There is no interest in betterment, merely convenience–a world bent to our own ideals, not the ideals which will set a world in right motion. Ego masquerades in many beautiful and inspirational forms.

So what! I will implode into my own depths all of my ideas except those which enable my mouth be silent. I will mute myself. I don’t have the right to say anything, for as Paul said, I am not righteous. And if I am not righteous what do I have to offer the world other than my broken understanding of God’s love which, being that I am in a constant and obstinate conflict with it, shall never be so bold as to proclaim it to an audience. Perhaps you have faith in that idea which relies on God to make right all that is wrong (your public folly), and if that is what you find comfort in, then what is that to me? But I feel that my faith in God should be expressed in the opposite idea which relies on all that is not foolishly and recklessly communicated to be revealed by God to the individuals of this world when the moment is ripe.

Ultimately, I do not know, nor do you. Wouldn’t it be agreed that those things which we don’t understand should be those things we approach with the most humility and respect. I will not scream about economics if I my knowledge of the topic does not exceed a general understanding of Adam Smith and Keynes. I will not scream about love and world peace if I am still out for myself and call it self-preservation and self-respect. I will not scream about Jesus if my only association with his ethics are displayed when the spot lights are on.

Is faith in God to be expressed by desiring a change in the world for the better, or is faith in God expressing your gratitude for the world you do live in and those who love you, and is it expressed by thanking God for the state of everything knowing that nothing will happen that is not in his design? Isn’t that tenacious mindset and mission to change the world also an expression of your judgement on God’s creation? Were the disciples sent to change the world?I would say that they were sent change the individual. What do we know about the world and our own ideas? So much as to assume that our will shall fall upon the lives of millions of lost individuals who merely want to live (survive, cope) and engage in what they understand as love? Does faith render us immobile? Perhaps faith redirects our attention to ourselves before it is directed any where else.

Veritable Freedom

I recently read an feature piece on Al-Jazeera’s website about the rise of Christianity in China. The article briefly explored the context out of which this increase in Christianity arose. One of the reasons for this increase is political. The article quotes Mark Shan, a spokesperson for China Aid, “The Cultural Revolution disillusioned Chinese people and the brainwashing atheist education made people thirsty [for] spirituality.” Another reason had to do more of a cultural shift in China’s recent years. “Some believe that Christianity could help fill a moral void in an increasingly self-centred, materialistic and corrupt society, as well as helping to meet the demand for social services.” So, assuming these two stimuli are indeed influencing people to turn towards Christianity, one could say that this shift is reactionary. It seems as though there is a timeless current in the human spirit, one that will always desire to express ones autonomy. While the means by which we do so may vary, the reasoning can all be linked. I’ve been reading over Camus’ essay, “The Rebel” again because I’m interested in rebellion in relation to Christianity. Although, to understand that, one would have to start at a more general level–rebellion in relation to humanity. Camus states, “Rebellion, thought apparently negative, since it creates nothing, is profoundly positive in that it reveals the part of man which must always be defended.” Rebellion is a claim on the whole of humanity before it is a claim on any specific injustice.

So to back up, what does this rise of Christianity in China mean? Does it  point to the power of Christ? No, it points to the spirit of a general humanity. If a person has absolute freedom, then I would imagine that the only thing he could rebel against is himself. Although, if a person is denied freedom to express him or herself freely, then history has shown that there is a breaking point at which rebellion is a necessary and predictable result. So whether it be freedom to not worship a God, or a freedom to worship a God, we want it all, and will react accordingly. So, while agnostics and atheists in America fight for liberation from God (where Christians have worshipped freely since the countries birth), citizens in China are starting to fight for liberty from atheism which has been their rule since the revolution. People will always react to oppression, we’re so predictable that way.

Of course, freedom to worship is not veritable freedom. Do we want complete freedom? Dostoevsky says no, Sartre says it is a condemnation, Kierkegaard likens it to dizziness. I would venture to say that we don’t know what we want, and because of that, our loud brash arrogant claims about what we deserve arise not from an awareness of the totality, or meaning, of existence, but merely point to the current conditions out of which those cries arise, and those conditions are always “current” in that they are never static. Although, it is not to say that our “demands” are unjustified, but the ceiling is low. I become skeptical when those demands become grandiose and poetic. In my compartmentalized and conditioned existence, I want freedom only up to a point. The freedom I ask for is paltry, and it is relative to my condition, but not necessarily unwarranted.

In relation to that existential freedom, the freedom Dostoevsky says none of us truly desire, the freedom Sartre says we are condemned to, the freedom Kierkegaard claims is dizziness–even amongst that small trio of influential thinkers, one can gather that freedom is a challenging idea. The word “freedom” as appropriated by propaganda is another way of swearing allegiance to another, which is a denial of freedom. None of us have ever know true freedom, we are all hinged to something. As Bob Dylan sang during his controversial gospel phase, “you gotta serve somebody.” If not, you serve yourself, and who among us has the audacity to claim a well functioning self-autonomy; one that is understood and reigned in. We will ourselves in a way that is entirely human, and humanity, while showing the ability to pull together only in necessity and desperation, rarely serves our benefit when un-challenged. Our existence, when untethered by duty to family, work, or entertainment, is a clumsy mess of pathetic appeals, no matter how artful we are. Freedom is entirely foreign. What do I know of freedom? I’ve never had it, nor have I desired it. I have merely desired free time. When have our true thoughts ever been liberated?

spotted thoughts on collective enthusiasm, institution, and revival

This morning there was a blog in the Huffington Post “Christianity” section about a revival that is happening in North Carolina. The blog explained that the “festival leaders hope to establish the premier venue for 20-somethings who love God but aren’t thrilled with institutional Christianity, particularly the religious right.”

Two things from that last statement caught my attention. First, the mention of “20-somethings.” What do we think of when we think of 20-somethings? Essentially we think of idealists. Youth who feel frustrated with the current state of American and the world. College students who go full force in support or in defiance of social issues, submerged in the current of their romantically revolutionary predecessors–Thomas Merton, Ghandi, Emma Goldman, Che, Bono. 20-somethings are thirsty for identity, which is why it is not uncommon that most float from issue to issue.

The 2nd thing that caught my attention is the mention of “institutional Christianity.” This is a tricky one. I’ve been having a some conversations with friends recently about the nature of “the church,” and what is wrong with it, what it’s roll should be, how to deal with its influence. What is “institutional Christianity?” Is such a pejorative term defined simply by the success of a church? Or does it refer to the church’s activity in the community or lack there of? Is it meant for a church that does not practice the teachings of Christ, but merely teaches what Christ taught? Or does it refer to the more broad state of Christianity in America in its relation to the political right?

It seems that 20-somethings and “institutional Christianity,” or “institutional anything” are prime for a very rich confrontation simply because of the rolls they fill in the spectrum of American culture, both socially and politically.

The context in which these two spirited parties come into contact with each other is one that is enjoying a certain popularity amongst more liberal minded Christians. The emergent movement which is focused on applying the teachings of Jesus in a way that makes more logical sense in the context of a cultural sensitivity, a culture that is diverse and in need of compassion such as ours has connected with today’s youthful more socially minded Christians who are in need of something that can justify their belief in the eyes of their more secular yet equally conscious peers. Everyone wants to be understood and everyone wants something to fight for, it validates our existence. Magazines such as Relevant have taken advantage of the humanity of Christians–which is definitely necessary. The leaders of the revival explain their motivation– “We gather to learn what Jesus came to teach us, which is not how to be a Christian, but how to be human.” That is an admirable intent, but it is an also an appeal, an apology.

The participants of revivals such as these, unified by a conscious rebellion against the “institution” of Christianity are in danger of having to be institutionalized the more successful they become. Even in the situation which sees success as more participants rather than just financial fortune–there will come a time when the movement has to be institutionalized simply out of necessity. So when speaking of the “institution”..what would be more ideal? Communities will eventually all have to organize themselves if they are to have a mission. The problems of Christianity began with the Edict of Milan, when Constantinople legitimized Christianity. So the success of Christianity marks the beginning of its downfall. But it should be pointed out that the problems of the institution of Christianity are inherent in any large and organized collective. It is the position of the Church in the community and the public’s misconception of it as a place of heightened morality which emphasizes and demonizes these issues more so than if it were any other institution. The Church has become a symbol of something unattainable. The Church, at its best, is a system that has been arranged by people who are driven by a conviction, and should never be judged otherwise. Problems arise in the Church because of the flaws of humanity, not the institutionalization of it.

Revivals like “Wild Goose” provide a place for youth to make a claim on their own identity which can be problematic. I’m reminded of the lyrics to a song by mewithoutyou–”I do not exist.” John teaches that we (Christians) are not of this world–and this verse takes on a whole slew of interpretations. Where does the line exist that separates the support of a community and the comfort of community? I never mean to dismiss this spirit of social awareness in the name of Christ, but humanity has a nagging way of making a market out of a movement, and it is just this tendency that makes me skeptical of everything. The more successful something is, the more problems arise because of it. We have to always be aware of irony, and just like everything else in history, the figure of Christ and his teachings destabilize it all. The moment we get too comfortable with ourselves is the moment that Christ can cut our legs out from under us. Christ reflects strongest not on the behavior of the vague public, but on our own self. We are all muted by our own existence. How does this joyous and collective enthusiasm sneak up and blind us in the spirit of unity and disguise of spirituality?

love and hate

I wonder which word is irresponsibly spewed more–love or hate? I hear a lot about hate–hate speech, hate crimes, hate taxes, hate my ex, blah blah. Surely hate exists, it’s easy to hate. To hate some idea, or to hate someone, is sophisticated and elegant, it gives someone a purpose. If one hates something, it can imply an enlightened view supplemented with reason and justification, it can imply parameters and ethics, it provides a place. Hate can be ironic or undermining–we kill those we hate, and what is murder but the action of hate? I kill Christians because I love Allah, I hate gays because I love Christ, I hate immigrants because I love America. To hate something can be understood as, or appropriated as, an expression of love for something else..hate and love can exist in direct relation. All is misunderstood, all is selfish.

Similarly, love is over used as well. It is odd perhaps, but the irresponsible abuse of the word, concept, or action of love is more maddening than the silly (silly in that it commands no recognition, silly in that is childish) banner of hate. Love has the advantage of representing, or being understood as a positive emotion, which leaves it vulnerable to poetic leeches and slogans. Love has become more than it actually is. Love does not exist on it’s own, it is not self sustained. Love is not its own momentum. Love can not be relied upon. Love is not a savior. Sometimes I think that love is never recognized in real time, it is only recognized in retrospect after one can look upon history and see a live lived in blind devotion. Love is not a magical connection, it does not happen in those beautiful moments. Lust and infatuation exist as themselves, it is because love is so misunderstood that leads to those romantic avatars which fool the vulnerable into claiming love.

I’ve heard love associated with freedom, but an existence in love is a welcomed oppression. Love is willed by ones autonomy, and then enslaves one to another, and that enslavement is voluntarily willed each day based on a falling into place and a peace that is not able to be communicated, nor even understood. Love is a display of faith. One can witness faith in love between two people more often than love between an individual and God, a faith that is more real only because it can be witnessed. The word “love” is used so often and without consequence that is has become just that…a word, and nothing more. Very few know love, very few want to truly know love. There is joy in love, and contentment in love, and because of that it can be said that one can be thankful in bondage, and that is love indeed…love is revolutionary because it is constantly shocking and leaves no one unchanged.

If one’s love is selective–if one’s love chooses those in need, or those with mutual aspirations and interests, or the selfish artists, then one’s love is selfish, and to be selfish is not to love. Are there different types of love? Do those loves order themselves into a functional and prioritized hierarchy, and if so, then do those loves that come in 2nd, 3rd, and 4th place become more akin to socially or ethically motivated obligations? Is love ever bearable..can one ever take a leave of love?

In certain contexts, hate and love are mutually destructive. Love is uncommunicable in its offerings and constantly demanding. I would much rather the word “hate” be over used, no one is destroyed when one discovers their enemy never really hated them.

My love is my secret and will make no sense and offer no benefit to anyone else. My love uplifts me and my beloved, and others can go on without knowing it at all. My love will not save me, it will enlighten me to my own unique an existential joy. I do not love everyone, and charity is not given in love. Many emotions parade in the cloak of love, yet there is only one true love, and it is frightful.

“when we swear, my love is real, we mean, i like the way you make me feel”