“Baa’s” and “Nee’s”

 

With the popularity and unpopularity of Jordan Peterson almost constantly in the news, his ideas are certainly worthy of discussion. Fan or foe, he does speak to rouse discussion on many fronts.  And thankfully he straddles the line between science and philosophy.  As a clinical psychologist with many years of dealing with the ugliness that goes on in the minds of people, he has seen first hand the destruction we do to one another and to ourselves.  He has taken what he has observed in his practice, to lay out what he sees are the fundamental issues troubling mankind.  (Well, not really all of mankind because only those nations rich enough to be troubled of their own identity have the luxury of challenging their identity.  Mankind in less than luxurious circumstances can’t be bothered with such ethereal pondering when they don’t know where their next meal is coming from.)

I must say at the outset, I have not read Peterson’s book, 12 Rules for Life.  Interesting though it may be, my “to read” shelf is not bearing up well under the weight of the books I already have placed there.  But having read it or not, doesn’t really matter for what I want to discuss.  I watched a video of his interview with Dennis Prager to hear what he had to say about people asking him if he believed in God.  His comments were fascinating.  “Who would have the audacity to claim to believe in God?”  To make such a claim “means you have to live it out fully” which is an “unbearable task”.  He says in a nutshell, “unless you act it out you better be careful about claiming it”.  His bottom line is to say “I try to act as if God exists.”

In view of his comments, it is obvious that he is caught up in the notion of having to earn ones salvation, that we have to behave properly before we can be saved.  He doesn’t say this explicitly, but it is there, I believe.  In the inimitable words of Frank Valli “So close…so close and yet so far.”  While Peterson is close to the truth in that we don’t have a right in our own work or power to claim to believe in the Creator of the Universe, we do have an advocate who claims it for us.  So he is right…but then wrong.  It is unbearable for any human being but then Christ was not just any human being.  It is audacious but our boldness resides in Christ who endured the cross for our sake.  And by him we can boldly claim it, because Jesus “acted it out”.  As followers of Christ we have entry into the presence of God and can be audaciously and vociferously confident to call ourselves Christians.

But then there are those…who say that we ought to deny our Christian title.  Why?  One reason I heard argues by putting labels on ourselves we define our differences as way of pigeon-holing people.  On the surface, yes, we want unity of people.  God does not want chaos but peace and orderliness.  At all costs?  No…only at the cost of the blood of Jesus.  Apparently defining ourselves as Christians shuts down meaningful dialog. Really?Labels don’t shut down dialog, people do and we often do it aggressively.  Why?  Selfishness, pride, greed, uncertainty, powerlessness, jealousy…you name it and we have a reason to justify it. Jesus tells us there are sheep and there are goats that will one day be judged according to their status (Matthew 25).  The lack of ability to discuss issues civilly, winsomely, and intelligently is not a factor of what we claim to be, but a  factor of what our self-centered, hyper-sensitized, and overly indignant ideological  minds claim to be true–apologies to Shakespeare, we are “hoisted by our own” wretchedness.  And where is that status established?  Here on earth–right here, right now, we are either sheep or goats, Christians or pagans. Choose this day…

 

 

 

 

The Benevolent One

Here it is Wednesday [now Friday as I go to publish this], and I am just getting around to reading the Review section of the newspaper, The Australian.  I know, you are thinking “You still get a newspaper delivered???”.  We get the weekend edition and spend the entire week working our way through it.  It’s a comfort thing, I reckon.

In this past weekend edition was an article about the similarities between two novels written early in the 20th century—WE by Yevgeny Zamyatin and 1984 by George Orwell.  The point of the article was to suggest that 1984 was quite possibly plagiarized by Orwell from Zamyatin’s book written 25 years prior.  If something like this had taken place today, Orwell would have been called to account for the similarities in the two story lines.

I have not read either book in their entirety—I think I fell asleep watching 1984 the movie.  I do recognize and have used many of the terms from 1984—“Big Brother is watching”, “thought police”, “doublethink”.  These phrases have become a part of our lexicon, never mind the term “Orwellian” to describe all things dystopian.  But this claim of plagiarism is not my interest.  At this point in history, what purpose does it serve other than to highlight WE and its parallel sense of a world operating counter to the “common” sense of justice and the evils of suffering?

What caught my interest in two books I have not read is the fact that both suggest a direction of sociological belief and desire to live in a world, Oceania, controlled by “Big Brother” or in the case of WE, the Benefactor of the One State.  Both authors zeroed in on a human desire to be “governed” by The One.  Winston Smith, the protagonist of 1984, comes to the realization that he, in truth, loves Big Brother.   Well, you can see where this is headed.

Of course we have an innate desire to be governed (dare we say loved?) by The One!  It is in our DNA, so to speak, we are hard wired to desire love, mercy, fellowship, and yes, even discipline from The One we love.  We just part ways when it comes to His identity.  From my perspective there are just two choices—The One is human or divine.  I don’t really see much of an alternative since within all of history, no others have revealed themselves.  No sense borrowing trouble with silly notions of extraterrestrials and the like.  Let’s just deal with the evidence at hand.

Many people scoff at the notion of theocracy, the notion that a God could govern the world.  But as a Christian, isn’t this exactly what we believe?  While we may have earthly leaders and governors, they ultimately govern at the behest of the Almighty. “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.” Romans 13:1 Even though God has set people in power for His purposes, He ultimately rules!  A blinding statement of the obvious.  Or is it?  Big Brother and/or The Benefactor?  No…Yahweh.  He is watching to gather unto Himself those who love Him and accept what He has done for us in Christ.  We don’t deserve His love, His mercy, or even His discipline.  But thankfully He provides it to those whom He predestined and called.  “And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose.” Romans 8:28

So this apparent innate desire to have some one to rule over us is legitimate, beneficial, and biblical.  The issue is WHO that ONE is…and that makes all the difference.

“Now therefore fear the Lord and serve him in sincerity and in faithfulness. Put away the gods that your fathers served beyond the River and in Egypt, and serve the Lord. ¹⁵ And if it is evil in your eyes to serve the Lord, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.” Joshua 24:14-15