hijacked

We’re Not Made for Paradise

Standard

Having overindulged in a stimulating activity more than once, I’ve felt the effects of the dopamine withdrawal.  Trivia Crack, aptly named, consumed me for a few weeks as I moved up through the ranks of friends.  The game played to my strengths and it became obsession after a little success.

The chemical rewards system of our body is hijacked by addiction.  For me things will often spiral quickly when exposed to a new stimulant.  Which is the nature of things in the social media and smart phone era, it is not restricted to location, the gratification of desire is instant, and the stigma is not large enough to restrain us.

What gives me new clarity about this is my good intentions for my son.  He loves to be on his tablet, watching TikTok videos, and can do this for hours on end.  Which is fine if his life is to be a consumer rather than a creator.  The problem is there is no need of art or mastery, both of which require some effort end struggle.  His entertainment will come at the expense of ambition.

The reason why I limit his screentime is to keep him directed towards development of talents.  In the ‘real world’ you don’t actually get any where sitting on your butt glued to a screen.  I mean, I do make a living this way, by clicking imaginary objects on a screen that others will fabricate into trusses using wood and metal plates.  Still, this isn’t really as fulfilling as it would seem and certainly isn’t as rewarding as winning a hard fought basketball game after weeks of practice.

Whether by creation in an instant or through generations, the basic systems of our body are designed to seek out those things that we need to survive.  And the rarer that these things are the more desirable they must be because this is what drives us.  Essentially, free will is questionable when so much of our own behavior is governed by impulses we have little control over.  Just try going without food for a day or two and tell me who is really in control of your actions.

The real problem is both excessive supply of things meant to be rare and the artificial replacements.  Eat too much sugar and the results will eventually catch up in the form of weight gain and diabetes.  If you wish to crush a man’s natural desire, the kind that is accompanied by productive behavior, then give him a unending access to sources of pleasure that aren’t tied to any work.

And this is the true sin of pornography and masturbation.  It isn’t so much that seeing the female form and appreciation of those feminine assets is so bad, it is why men get married after all.  However, it is when these things are satisfied in a way that does not produce the end that was intended.  Sexual activity without relationship or commitment is certainly fun and yet equivalent to empty calories.  It doesn’t build anything.

Which leads to the other problem of access and that being diminished returns.  In other words, with the replacements, while killing natural drives, one must do more and more to get the same pleasure.  No, maybe it isn’t good to enter the world always horned out or starved, that has it’s own problems, but some things are meant to be obtained via the traditional path.  Men who always get what they want in life never develop good character.

Which is the paradox.  We dream of having our desires satisfied.  And yet, even if we had the real deal to indulge ourselves to the max, would we be happy?  Was King David content with multiple wives?  Did it prevent him from noticing what other men had and acting out in lust?  The reality is most of us would be lascivious and bloated, like Harvey Weinstein, if we actually had the power to take shortcuts to our paradise.

We are not made to be removed from the limitations of our environment.  But, beyond this, all triumphs are short lived.  The point of our natural desires isn’t to ever lead us to contentment.  If anything, accomplishment of our ultimate goals may be anticlimactic and a disappointment.  That ‘perfect’ girl is going to fart in bed.  She’s not going to look dolled up and sexy like the fantasy version of her suitor’s mind.

As a child I wasn’t much different from my son.  I would draw my ideal world.  And in one of these visions was a bedroom with an automatic pizza making machine and soda fountain.  As an adult, I now know that this would be awesome for a week and not too long after that it would be disgusting.  The same goes for almost anything when piled up in excess.  Value drops with availability, which deprives is of satisfaction.

In the end, a Grand Theft Auto world, or one where we can simply take anything we want and is free of all consequences, would not be wonderful.  This is what went wrong with sexual liberation and dismissal of the moral wisdom passed down.  No, religious authority doesn’t accomplish the balance without wisdom, but it definitely can give a head start to the wise.  We’re not made for heaven—only to strive for it.

Religions of Peace and of Violence

Standard

Okay, I’m breaking a rule here, I’m going to mention a political figure and have tried to avoid politics on this blog.  Still, I do feel inclined to weigh in on a recent furor over something President Obama recently said:

“So how do we, as people of faith, reconcile these realities — the profound good, the strength, the tenacity, the compassion and love that can flow from all of our faiths, operating alongside those who seek to hijack religious for their own murderous ends?

Humanity has been grappling with these questions throughout human history.  And lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ.  In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ.“

The President continued on to talk about religious violence in India.  (Click here for the transcript)  But, it is the remarks highlighted in bold above that are the center of controversy, it has offended some of my Christian friends and initially annoyed me for various reasons.  Obama has this propensity for lecturing or condescension and I’m not sure he’s earned the right to speak about high horses.  However, on second thought, after reading some of the commentary in response and what seems to be either ignorance or denial of history, I am reconsidering my first impression.

There is, among my Christian friends, widespread denial or downplaying of violence done in the name of Christ.  That alone would be excusable, but that coupled with harsh judgments against Muslims and demands they denounce terrorism, seems a bit hypocritical.  Many Americans do not want themselves to be associated with the foreign policy of present and past US Presidential Administrations, let alone told they themselves need to apologize personally for every misdeed an American has done.  So why do we ask others to do what we don’t do?

What is the/a religion of peace?

One of those litmus test questions I see frequently asked as it pertains to terrorism and Islam, is “do you think Islam is a religion of peace?”  The phrase “religion of peace” is also often used sarcastically or to parody government leaders who use that phrase as part of trying to distinguish between terrorists and other Muslims.  But one place I don’t see that question asked is as it pertains to Christian history and Biblical religion.  Would Christianity pass the same test and be considered a “religion of peace” to an objective observer?  The answer might change depending on perspective.

Is Christianity a religion of peace?

Many Christians will claim that the Bible is their ultimate authority.  But then I have to wonder if they have ever actually read their Bibles when they recoil in horror at the mention of Sharia law.  The Christian Bible is full of bloodshed in the name of God.  There are instructions to kill every inhabitant of conquered lands, specifically every man, woman, child, sometimes even the livestock, and often times sparing the virgin women as war brides.  You can read this for yourself in the books of Numbers 31 and 1 Samuel 15.  By Biblical law disobedience to parents, picking up sticks on the wrong day of the week, adultery and blasphemy merited a death sentence by stoning. 

I can anticipate, because of prior experience in discussions, that the paragraph above could elicit howls of protest and that Jesus marked a change.  Yet, if we look at Christian history after Christ, it is evident many did not get the memo and the it is hard to even know where to begin.  History like the Salem witch trials, Gnadenhutten massacre, Manifest destiny, Jewish persecution, Anabaptist persecution, countless bloody wars between Christian people groups and many other examples besides the Crusades and the Inquisition or slavery and Jim Crow could be cited as Christian violence.  Much of it, from slavery to antisemitism, justified by Biblical passages and perspectives.

For those who would argue this use of Scripture is wrong and that Jesus taught peace rather the sword, that too could be questioned.  Christian theology is not very tolerant of unbelievers.  The Gospels teach that one must repent of sin, they must accept Jesus as Savior and Lord or they will be condemned for eternity.  Beyond that, consider Matthew 10:34 where he says: “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.”  That doesn’t sound very peaceable. 

If the Bible and Christian history is so awful, why be a Christian?

I think that would be the next good question after all I just described.  After all, if I value woman’s rights, oppose genocide and slavery, shouldn’t I be looking elsewhere for my answers?  The simple answer is that I do look elsewhere.  I am not a Biblical fundamentalist, in that I do not see the Bible as the ultimate authority and instead look to the Spirit of God that was found in Jesus.  It is true, Jesus, as I quoted, did not promise peace on earth, but Jesus did set a different example to be followed:

“Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.”  (John 18:36 NIV)

Jesus gave a different kind of leadership model to his followers:

“Jesus called them together and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them.  Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave— just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”  (Matthew 20:25-28 NIV)

Jesus did not just build off of existing traditions or reform Hebrew religion, he changed the entire paradigm of faith and turned the established system upside down.  He supersedes the law of Moses with a standard radically different, in the ‘Sermon on the Mount’ he goes beyond retributive “eye for an eye” justice of Biblical law and totally rewrites the script:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’  But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.  And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well.  If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles.  Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.  “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’  But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,  that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.  If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that?  And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that?  Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”  (Matthew 5:38-48 NIV)

This was not just an amendment, it was a radical departure from the law of Moses and the establishing of a completely new system.  Christianity was never intended to be built on institutions, hierarchies of men or religious texts and any other form of top down power.  It was to be defined by grace, forgiveness, servant leadership and respect for all people, as Paul explains:

“Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn. Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position. Do not be conceited.  Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone.”  (Romans 12:14-18 NIV)

And goes further…

“So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.”  (Galatians 3:26-29 NIV)

In light of everything else Jesus said and did, I doubt his comment “I did not come to bring peace, but a sword” was to inspire Christian use of the sword. He was sharing a message that was a threat to the order of the day. His message split Judaism into two and changed the world.

Why did Christianity become so violent?

“There is a history of Christianity: the first three centuries of Christianity; it was a radical pacifist religion, which is why it was persecuted, it was the religion of the poor and the suffering, and Jesus was the symbol of the poor and the suffering…” (Noam Chomsky)

My faith is simple.  History is complex.  Christianity started as “a religion of women, children and slaves,” according to an early critic, but somewhere along the way it was corrupted (or “hijacked” in the words of the President) and became another excuse for violence.  To me the corruption begins whenever the leading of Jesus through the Spirit is replaced by anything, be that a charismatic leader, a dogma, a committee, and even the books of the Bible themselves.  If Jesus (what he represents) is not the center of Christian faith, then what is left is nothing but a ritual, a dead religion and a reasoning that soon becomes an excuse for violence.

So, President Obama, while I disagree with him on many things, does make a legitimate point and it would be biased for him to exempt those who have corrupted Christianity for their own “murderous ends” from his critique.  I am not personally offended, because my own faith is not violent and therefore I know those who used the name of Christ as their justification do not represent me. 

I likewise do not judge Muslim individuals by what others do in the name of their religion.  It is not my job to judge, it is my job to show the true way of Jesus and bring forgiveness and love to all people.