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.
No comments:
Post a Comment