Boethius' Theodicy: Fortune and Her Wheel

I read Boethius' Consolation of Philosophy for my Medieval Heroes and Villains class about whether Fortune, personified as a woman who doles out good or bad fortunes depending on the random spin of her wheel, is a force for good or evil. Boethius, being a Christian, wrestles with this very question, revealing his own theodicy, i.e. how he reconciles evil in the world with an all-good God. Boethius, a once influential and righteous man, was sentenced to death after supposedly be falsely accused of conspiring with the Eastern Roman Empire.

In The Consolation of Philosophy Boethius is grieving over his death sentence when Philosophy, a woman, appears to him to console him. Rather than fixing his environmental problems, she instead lifts him from his sorrows by critiquing and correcting the way he is inwardly viewing his situation and how he came to be “punished” for being a wise and moral man. Philosophy deduces that at the root of his suffering is confusion regarding his nature (Book I: VI).

Indeed, in Book II Philosophy proposes that Boethius believes that he has truly lost his good fortune. However, she also points out that this is untrue to the nature of Fortune (like Philosophy, personified as a woman):

If you recall to mind her character, her methods, and the kind of favour she proffers, you will see that in her you did not have and did not lose anything of value.
(Book II: I)

Philosophy challenges Boethius’ notion that good fortune is truly his. If it belongs to Fortune and her wheel of chance, how can he be upset when Fortune does what it is her nature demands, which is to change (Book II: I)? Therefore Boethius is being foolish for wishing for Fortune to act against the nature he knows she has.

This, however, bring up this important question: is Fortune a force of good or evil in the lives of men? From the text, it would appear that she is indeed a force of goodness. In chapter II of Book II Philosophy argues in Fortune's stead, and reminds Boethius that:

When nature brought you forth from your mother’s womb I received you naked and devoid of everything and fed from my own resources.
(Book II: II)

It is fortune that allows for men to experience physical blessings to begin with. Even Fortune’s nature to change from “good” to “bad” is put into good light, for without this possibility of change hope for better things could not exist (Book II: II).

Fortune is only perceived as a bad thing when one mistakes her blessings as a source of happiness. Philosophy argues that the root to goodness is happiness, and Fortune can never be the true path to happiness due to her ever changing nature (Book II: IV). She reaffirms that it is our perception of what good fortune is in life that makes it bad for us. She even flips the usual perception on itself and claims that bad fortune can actually be more beneficial to us since it encourages understanding of reality, such as who one’s true friends are willing to be loyal despite bad fortune, in contrast to good fortune which deceives one to the true nature of his friends, as many appear to be friends to those they perceive as fortunate in order to put themselves in a situation where they could possibly profit (Book II: VIII). This contrast points to the irony that it is bad fortune that reveals one of the most valuable blessings: true friendship.

Book III explores the nature of God, concluding that he is both pure goodness and omnipotent. Towards the end of Book III, Philosophy uses these conclusions to say something about the nature of evil itself. She argues if God is all powerful, then he can do everything. However, God cannot do evil; therefore evil is nothing (Book III: XII). This applies to Fortune as well as God. Fortune is shown to be a source of blessings and hope, despite her changing nature and the resulting bad fortune. And if God is assumed to be the creator of all things (Book I: VI), then his creation and design, including Fortune, are all good. It is one’s perception of the nature of things that makes it bad.

Therefore for Boethius, it is Fortune who works as fate to dole out "good" and "bad" fortune, but neither is truly good or bad. The perception of evil is only ignorance in the human mind, unaware of the ways of their perfect creator. Our liberation in faith does not come from promises of Heaven or Hell, but rather through true happiness that comes through experiencing the world as God does.

For those who are curious, Books IV and V work to further break down the mechanism that is personified by Fortune. Philosophy looks into the nature of Fate, distinguishing it from Providence. Providence is the simple plan of God through a chaotic medium that we call Fate. This of course brings up the seemingly paradox of fate coexisting with free will (Book V). Philosophy challenges Boethius' perception of understanding. While we are temporal beings who only experience the present, God is an eternal being that experiences all simultaneously outside of time. Therefore his will (Providence) is penetrating all the willed actions that we make, since we do make decisions on a timeline. We have will, but God sees all wills as happening at once, so he can work through our wills without creating them. Here are the closing remarks of Philosophy:

Hope is not placed in God in vain and prayers are not made in vain, for if they are the right kind they cannot but be efficacious. Avoid vice, therefore, and cultivate virtue; lift up your mind to the right kind of hope, and put forth humble prayers on high. A great necessity is laid upon you, if you will be honest with yourself, a great necessity to be good, since you live in the sight of a judge who see all things.
(Book V: VI)

Facing Armageddon: the Natural Clash Between the Traditional and the Progressive

About a month ago I posted some things on my Facebook wall poking at some of the Christians who supported Proposition 8. I kept seeing memes flying around, but couldn't contribute to the discussion because I was very busy. I finally made time to research it and found out it was about the label "marriage". I found this to be dumb, and got annoyed that people are using my own religious terms to justify politics that do not coincide with my religious beliefs. This annoyance is natural, as I am sure the conservatives who were offended by my posts have the same annoyance from me. This was my first post:

To Christians who interpret the Bible to mean that it is your obligation to display your beliefs by wishing to exclude homosexuals politically: When a religion that has its roots in love and inclusivity tries to suppress a movement from within that encourages it, they lose. The Pharisees failed to suppress Jesus' interpretation of scripture. The Catholics failed to prevent Protestantism. The Ku Klux Klan failed to limit Black rights and immigration policy. While they may have their victories and good deeds in history, in the end they will either evolve (which many do, such as the example of Catholicism) or diminish. A recent poll indicated that 58% of Americans support gay marriage, and 81% of young Americans (18-29) do as well. To quote Agent Phil Coulson: "You're gonna lose... It's in your nature."

I didn't think it was too offensive (although perhaps a little too blunt), and my point was that values change in time, and that's a good thing. To be conservative is to naturally be under attack by progressive and modern thought. I am currently reading Peter Rollin's Fidelity of Betrayal where he talks about how betraying our religion is part of the way of Christ. Values do change, and it is our duty to apply the essence of Christ, that of love and acceptance, into the changing values. This concept is also brilliantly illustrated in the graphic novel Kingdom Come by Alex Ross and Mark Waid, which I just read in preparation for a grad class next year (the theme being "are super heroes the modern mythology?"). Here Superman and the other, now old, Justice League members are trying to force their values onto a modern world full of metahumans (humans with super powers). These metahumans do not hold onto the values of the heroes from the "Golden Age" with Superman leading the Justice League, and there is constant fighting going on between them simply to climb to power. The Justice League had been in isolation due to Superman's absence, but upon his return they once again follow him in his quest to aid mankind. However, what place does Superman have in this new world? There are countless metahumans causing panic. Superman's goal is simple: recruit those who see the need for his old time values of heroism and "educate" the others. This "education" obviously has its problems. What will he do to those who refuse to "learn"? Superman constructs a super jail to house all those who continue to harm mankind. But the prisoners break out, and a war ensues that threatens the entire world. In the end, it is a nuke sent from the U.N. that destroys nearly all those fighting.

Depressing, right? But it has a wonderful point. Superman is a god to us. Originally he represented Truth, Justice, and the American Way. Only now you won't see the "American Way" referenced. Because in modern society the "American Way" means obesity, corrupt capitalism, homophobia, and drone attacks. Superman has changed to reflect our modern values. But in Kingdom Come, he does not adapt to modern values. He keeps his values, which don't offer a valid help to the hypothetical modern world with metahumans running around unchecked. Did he do some good? Yes, he was seen as a beacon of hope, but what could he actually DO about the chaos metahumans caused? He constructed a prison to house those rogue metahumans, but under his own authority, not "the people's", and his "reeducating" system looked like tyrannical brainwashing. And ultimately, the conflict he caused put the whole world at risk. In the end, it was people that had to make the decision to nuke both heroes and villains alike in order to save mankind. The old ideals, as super as they were, were simply not enough to solve the new world's problems. There had to be an Armageddon. This tension between those trying to save the old world and those trying to shape the new world will always be in society.

Our super heroes are much like the gods of old, and even our concept of God now. We say that he is more than human, yet we relate to him through our human life. For us, God is not a mere tribal god that acts selfishly and whimsically, he is the ideal human. He is just, loving, protecting of the innocent, and to many a guardian angel. He is what we want to be, what we value in humanity. It's no wonder Freud in his Future of an Illusion thought that our need for a god in our life comes from our want for the perfect father figure, and our disappointment in our actual father. This wasn't always the case, even the Greeks saw gods as imperfect and troublesome to men at times. But they had so many gods to capture the things valued by all men. The Judeo-Christian tradition of course maintains that there is only one god. The ancient Hebrews saw him as a tribal god. In the Old Testament we see God be persuaded by man and even regret creation. By Jesus' time the concept of God had already been influenced by Greek thought and other mystery traditions. And when Christianity started to get formalized in the Roman Empire, it was neoplatonic thought that was used to explain and validate Christian doctrine. Neoplatonic thought includes ideas like there being one, perfect god who is the creator of all things. He is eternal. All good. Omnipotent. Omniscient.  These are the things that Christians still hold onto today. So now our understanding of God sees him less as a person but more of a general force for good. And "good" is relative, so it is natural to see God in our own image and our own ideals. But our ideals reflect our values, which are always changing from generation to generation. Therefore God seems to change from generation to generation.

Of course, if God is all perfect, he has no need to change. The ultra-conservative will try to live just as the Bible commands, regardless of cultural norm. But I think that misses the point. Christianity is all about the lifestyle. Before it was even given a formal name it was referred to simply as "The Way". Living like Christ was the essence. And Jesus showed that it is not simple action that is right or wrong, but the nature of the action. After all, Peter saw a vision allowing for him to eat pork and other "unclean" animals. Paul said that circumcision of the penis is not important. Jesus challenged Moses' allowance for divorce. Jesus claimed that if a man lusted after a woman in his heart, he had already committed adultery. Sin is in the mind (or if you prefer the older term for our processing organ, the heart). So if the point of the Christian faith is to keep our minds in a pure and loving and righteous nature, our perception of God SHOULD change. Humanity is constantly learning new things about itself, and values that are not seen as important to the essence of love should be dropped if they are harming or hindering others. Since the medieval times the Bible has been used to justify slavery. But then we realized as a culture that is was treating humans inhumanely. The "Christian" thing to do was to abolish slavery. Did God change? Or did our perception of him change?

A modern day example would be homosexuality. Christians have seen homosexuality as an abominable sin for centuries. But as a culture we are realizing that homosexuals do not appear to be so different than heterosexuals in psyche, both sexually and socially. If there is no crime involved, and it is not hurting anybody, why can't two men show their love for each other through marriage? With our new understanding of the nature of homosexuality comes new ways to show love to people who are marginalized by society.

This is a scary thought. Is stepping away from what was previously thought to be godly wise? I would say yes. Humanity is changing, and it needs different values to evolve in whichever way it does. I think the real duty of the Christian is to reflect upon his actions and change them to be as loving and as accepting and as personally holy as he possibly can be. Keeping the nature of Christ is much more important than keeping the tradition of the Bible. This is what Rollins calls "the fidelity of betrayal". In order to stay loyal to one's faith, one must betray it to maintain the nature of one's faith. But this is not easy. Someone actually got really upset with me for my Facebook posts. He is a pastor in Texas, and very conservative. It is sad for me to see that he is a dying breed (that is, fundamental Christians are dwindling and being perceived as out of touch). I love him, and want him to be successful in life, but I see why he must face his own Armageddon. The world he holds dear must come to an end so that the new world can come. He may have been a Superman in the past, but now he simply does not fit into the way the modern world works. But who knows what the future holds, and I have no doubt that I will one day face my own Armageddon. One day the world will reject my values, and I will be the crazy guy saying "the end is nigh." But the beautiful part is this: the world will go on so that love can flourish in ways that I cannot fathom.

World Naked Gardening Day 2013: Theological Nudity

Jesus said, "When you strip without being ashamed and you take your clothes and put them under your feet like little children and trample them, then you will see the child of the living one and you will not be afraid."

-Gospel of Thomas 37.2-3

Sadly, this year I will not be celebrating World Naked Gardening Day, as I still do not have a garden nor my own place, but I still wish to honor the idea of healthy nudity. I know some of you are wondering what happened to Ignakedio Zaragoza from last year's World Naked Gardening Day / Cinco de Mayo. He is no longer with us. We had some good times, but sadly I neglected to water him, as I am easily distracted. And I'm not much of a plant guy.

So is that it? Am I just going to talk about my past plants and not about the lack of pants? Sorry, that was bad. But no! Since I cannot celebrate properly, I will instead talk about what nudity means to me theologically speaking. Nudity is not merely an inner rebellion to tell society "screw you, I will be naked if I want to be", it is more than that. Because that is what faith and theology do: they bring meaning and symbolism to things that may look mundane to outsiders. Nakedness is very much a part of my faith.

My favorite myth of the Bible is the Garden of Eden. Here we see God making things how they are meant to function. He makes a beautiful garden, where man lives among nature and is happy, until he feels lonely, to which God responds by making a woman out of his side. Both are naked and are not ashamed (Genesis 2.25). Of course, the Promethean serpent talks Eve into eating the fruit of knowledge of Good and Evil, and as a result Adam and Eve feel shame. God asks them how they know they are naked; how could they possibly have a concept of nakedness if they were never clothed? And then we see blame being shifted, a sin which springs up from the original sin, which as we know quickly keeps rolling out of control. Cain kills Abel, etc, etc. It seems like nakedness is no longer a valid option. Sure, shame may be a product of our own insecurities, not a sin, but who cares, we are in a fallen world where we are prone to such contrasts to Eden, right? WRONG. Jesus of Nazareth comes and teaches us to be clean from our sins. Unlike the previous notion of atoning for these sins, Jesus teaches that God loves us as a father, and we don't need to worry about being forgiven if that is what we sincerely want. But he goes further, he teaches us that God's Kingdom, the realm on earth in which man lives as God made us to, is RIGHT HERE. What? Is this real life? And he teaches that we don't need to worry about what we do as much as we worry about our minds, because that is where sin starts. Righteous action naturally follows the righteous mind. This is not to say that we shouldn't be concerned with our actions, but rather that radical transformation starts by transforming the mind, not trying to manipulate actions. We don't need to "cut off our hand" out of fear of it causing us to sin and being cast away from God's presence, because our hand can't cause us to sin in the first place! We can be around sinners and heretics and prostitutes and taboo people, because we are responsible for our sins, not society or anything else! Our minds are the only thing keeping us from God's love. Pretty neat. So now, if we are supposed to be striving for God's Kingdom, AKA Eden, we can be naked. We don't need to let shame inhibit us from the liberation that comes from living life as God has created us to live despite our sins.

So nudity to me is not just being naked, it's about freedom. It symbolizes the freedom from the senseless shame that sin can bring, things that humans have concocted in their own minds. It's a symbol for my life in a world which I am actively working to be unstained from. In fact, early church baptisms were performed totally in the buff, including women (The Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus, 3rd century CE)! Modesty was highly valued then, yet nothing but your body was permitted to be cleansed in the baptism. Baptism represents the purging of this-worldly corruption. It symbolizes rebirth. In this new life, this acceptance of Jesus' teachings, we can truly stand naked and unashamed before a world that is constantly trying to clothe us with shame. This nudity showed renewal.

Early Christian painting of baptism in the nude

So that's what nakedness is to me in the mythic realms of my mind. It is liberation from wallowing in sin; it is intimacy with God by living how he made me to live; it is a badge of my rebirth. I hope you all can get naked and go water something, and have a great World Naked Gardening Day!