Another common objection I hear regarding Christianity is how it stifles people's freedom and individuality. Here is the basic logic flow:
1) I have strong personal convictions about my lifestyle and about what is right and wrong.
2) The Bible condemns some of these personal convictions.
3) Therefore, Christianity would be a straightjacket to my personhood.
The crux of this logical flow is that it assumes that our personal convictions about how to live are unquestionably correct. If this were so, I would agree that Christianity is a straightjacket, but there is a second possibility. What if God has a fuller, better idea of the kind of person we are supposed to be? Jesus strongly advocates this:
"I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full." -John 10:10
This notion is also prevalent in Proverbs, with the following verse being mentioned several times:
"There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death."
From these verses, and several others like them, we can see that God does not intend for faith to come at the expense of a full life here on Earth. But then why does what God wants often seem undesirable from a human perspective? I would argue that this conflict of desires is largely due to our selfishness and our shortsightedness.
A superb analogy is parenting: a mother is constantly correcting her toddler's actions and not letting him do things that he desires to do. The child desires to play with the electrical outlet, to drink the drain cleaner, or to play at the top of the stairs, but the mother condemns these activities in favor of others that seem less desirable. What is the mother's motive here? To stifle her child's individuality? On the contrary, from an adult perspective it is perfectly obvious that the mother is fully supportive of her child's individuality and personal interests, but has to regulate and refine them for the sake of the child's safety and well-being. The mother is helping her son to fulfill his true potential in a way that he would be incapable of doing on his own terms.
It is the same with God. He is not trying to restrict us, but rather protect us and harness our fullest potential. Let's use the common objection of sexual repression as a case study. From the perspective of many non-believers (and sometimes even believers), God and the Bible can be a straightjacket regarding our sexual desires. But what is God's real desire in prohibiting extra-marital relations? To make us repressed and miserable? Obviously not, for the Bible teaches that "it is better to marry than to burn with passion" (1 Corinthians 7:9). This verse is clearly stating that God desires for us to be sexually satisfied and does not desire for us to be repressed. But why can we only have sex within marriage, isn't that also repressive? Perhaps from a primal and shortsighted perspective, but multiple studies have revealed that married people have more sex and are more sexually satisfied compared to singles. There are also many other factors which could be articles to themselves, but in brief:
1) People who wait to have sex until they marry have a higher level of communication and romance during their courtship that builds a better emotional base for their marriage.
2) Waiting until marriage will prevent any sexual baggage with prior partners that can cause significant marital and sexual difficulties.
3) Waiting until marriage prevents any sexually transmitted disease or unwanted pregnancy
4) Not allowing sex outside of the marriage will remove possible temptations to have an affair, which can destroy entire families from the inside-out.
I could list many more, but the point is that God does not require us to
wait until marriage to somehow punish us or restrict us, but rather to
give us the fullest possible quality of marriage and sexual intimacy.
Actually, marriage itself is a great analogy for how God is not a straightjacket when viewed with the proper context. Marriage has a great number of prohibitions and restrictions, yet the vast majority of people on Earth desire marriage as a positive thing. Why is this? Because only by operating within these restrictions can you fully commit and love your spouse for the rest of your life. Take away the restrictions, take away the commitment, and you have lost much of what makes love and marriage so special in the first place! It is the same with God, the commitments and the restrictions that He requires for a relationship with Him are there to maximize the impact of our relationship. He only prohibits things that affect our spiritual, emotional, or physical well-being, while at the same time giving us the unconditional love and emotional security needed to be able to live our lives to the fullest.
Monday, May 27, 2013
Tuesday, May 21, 2013
Misconception about Christianity #5: Exclusivity
I thought it would be engaging to talk about the five most common misconceptions concerning Christianity that I often hear from people and read in books. Please note that this particular series is not intended to argue why Christianity is true, but rather to clarify some aspects of Christian theology that are too frequently misunderstood. Let's start with the #5 most common misconception that I hear:
Misconception #5: Christianity is arrogant because it makes an exclusive truth claim
It is not obvious why this is a misconception, because Christianity DOES make many exclusive truth claims. Perhaps the best example is when Jesus says that he is the only path to eternal life with God:
"I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6)
So what is the misconception then? The mistake is in thinking that making truth claims is arrogant. What most people don't realize is that EVERYONE makes exclusive truth claims, no matter what you believe. Even somebody who argues that there is no exclusive truth is actually making an exclusive truth claim! Think about it: if you argue that there shouldn't be any exclusive truth claims, you are excluding those who DO think that there are exclusive truth claims. Therefore saying there is no one truth is just as exclusive as people who say that there is only one truth.
An excellent example of this is Vanderbilt University, who recently banned all organized groups from requiring their leaders to have specific beliefs. For example, Christian organizations that require their members to have specific Christian beliefs are no longer allowed to meet on campus. You can see the inescapable irony: in trying to prevent anyone from being exclusive, they had to exclude a great number of groups and people!
It comes down to this: there is either one correct truth or there is no such thing as truth, but regardless of which one you believe you are excluding the beliefs of others. Therefore the existence of exclusive truth claims should not deter people from considering Christianity, as people have to live by such claims no matter what!
Misconception #5: Christianity is arrogant because it makes an exclusive truth claim
It is not obvious why this is a misconception, because Christianity DOES make many exclusive truth claims. Perhaps the best example is when Jesus says that he is the only path to eternal life with God:
"I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6)
So what is the misconception then? The mistake is in thinking that making truth claims is arrogant. What most people don't realize is that EVERYONE makes exclusive truth claims, no matter what you believe. Even somebody who argues that there is no exclusive truth is actually making an exclusive truth claim! Think about it: if you argue that there shouldn't be any exclusive truth claims, you are excluding those who DO think that there are exclusive truth claims. Therefore saying there is no one truth is just as exclusive as people who say that there is only one truth.
An excellent example of this is Vanderbilt University, who recently banned all organized groups from requiring their leaders to have specific beliefs. For example, Christian organizations that require their members to have specific Christian beliefs are no longer allowed to meet on campus. You can see the inescapable irony: in trying to prevent anyone from being exclusive, they had to exclude a great number of groups and people!
It comes down to this: there is either one correct truth or there is no such thing as truth, but regardless of which one you believe you are excluding the beliefs of others. Therefore the existence of exclusive truth claims should not deter people from considering Christianity, as people have to live by such claims no matter what!
Sunday, May 12, 2013
Book review: The Dark Tower series by Stephen King
"The man in black fled across the desert, and the gunslinger followed."
So begins what was perhaps the most epic literary experience that I have ever digested. For those not in the know, 'The Dark Tower' is a fantasy/western/sci-fi/horror series by Stephen King, which he considers to be his magnum opus. Over the past year and finishing today, I have read through the entire series, which is comprised of 8 books and 4,250 pages!!! Along with Roland, the main character, I have journeyed all the way from a remote desert to the top of the tower, and after peering inside the utmost room can say that it was a journey worth taking. Since this series was largely inspired by Clint Eastwood's westerns, I thought it would be fun to briefly recount 'The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly' concerning the Dark Tower series. Some (minor) spoilers ahead for those who have not yet read it!
THE GOOD:
1) Original. I mean, come on, how many books can truly claim to be a fantasy/western/horror/sci-fi adventure, dealing with everything from philosophy to man-eating spiders? I can honestly say I have never read anything like this series before, and for the most part that was a good thing.
2) Epic. Most of the books in this series gave an unprecedented sense of scale and peril to the proceedings. Particularly in the best books (rankings to follow), there was a sense of mystery and certain doom lurking around every corner. You never quite knew what danger was around the bend, but somehow it was (almost) always logical how the characters got out of these sticky situations.
3) Roland. The main character was difficult to like, especially at first, but it was interesting to see his increasingly humanized side as he formed his crew over the course of the series. Perhaps even more fascinating was watching him gradually return back to his hardened, loner self near the end as the quest for the Tower once again took away much of what was making him human again.
4) Oy. Not quite a dog, Oy was an animal called a Bumbler who had the loveable ability to mimic back people's conversation. What raised Oy above the grade of a mere parrot was his ability to genuinely understand the importance of what he was saying. I was surprised to find, by the end of the final book, that I felt more connected to Oy than any of the human characters, and the end of his story was genuinely moving.
5) Ka. A primary theme in the series was 'Ka', which was their word for 'fate'. Perhaps more than any other work I have read, this book investigated all the ups and down with the notion of fate. Is it right to chalk something up to fate that was a selfish action? Or should one take responsibility for one's own choices? Is this even possible, do we have free will? All of these questions were explored, particularly in the fascinating ending which I will not ruin here.
THE BAD:
1) Uneven. When I was watching a documentary on the works of Beethoven, there was an intriguing analysis by a musicologist on Beethoven's famous 9th symphony. This scholar was essentially saying that because Beethoven's work was so completely original and unprecedented, it was extremely uneven in tone and execution (dare he even say it: flawed!). His point was not that the 9th symphony was bad, of course it was brilliant. His point was that when anyone breaks completely new ground and invents a fundamentally new paradigm, that almost by definition it must be flawed and uneven because there is nothing to compare it to for a quality check. I felt that same way about this series, it's biggest strength was its profound originality but this also resulted in a lot of inconsistency. Some examples to follow below.
2) Pacing. Some books were gripping and tense all the way through, but most were way too bloated for the amount of actual plot they contained. Books 4-6, I'm looking at you!
3) Rules. A key necessity for any fantasy series is that there is a consistent set of rules governing the fantasy universe. Otherwise, there's sort of a sense that "anything goes", which ruins the sense of peril and believability of the universe. This was a huge problem here. It seemed like there were any number of ways that magical events could occur or parallel universes could do funny things, but it was so random that it often ruined the world's sense of reality.
4) Villains. What a missed opportunity!!! The main villains: Walter, Marten, and the Crimson King, are entirely underdeveloped, one-dimensional, and curiously almost entirely absent from any actual proceedings despite playing crucial roles in the story.
THE UGLY:
Stephen King's imagination. A warning for the squeamish: there is some truly gross stuff in this series! I have been told it's not as bad as his straight-up horror books, which I have never read, but yeah there is some dark and messed up crap. I can definitely tell he has some repressed daddy issues, that's for sure.
THE RANKING:
As I mentioned, there were 8 books, here is my final ranking from best to worst:
1) Book 7 - The Dark Tower
2) Book 2 - The Drawing of the Three
3) Book 3 - The Waste Lands
4) Book 4 - Wizard and Glass
5) Book 1 - The Gunslinger
6) Book 5 - Wolves of the Calla
7) Book 4.5 - The Wind Through the Keyhole
8) Book 6 - The Song of Susannah (yuck, what a mess!)
So begins what was perhaps the most epic literary experience that I have ever digested. For those not in the know, 'The Dark Tower' is a fantasy/western/sci-fi/horror series by Stephen King, which he considers to be his magnum opus. Over the past year and finishing today, I have read through the entire series, which is comprised of 8 books and 4,250 pages!!! Along with Roland, the main character, I have journeyed all the way from a remote desert to the top of the tower, and after peering inside the utmost room can say that it was a journey worth taking. Since this series was largely inspired by Clint Eastwood's westerns, I thought it would be fun to briefly recount 'The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly' concerning the Dark Tower series. Some (minor) spoilers ahead for those who have not yet read it!
THE GOOD:
1) Original. I mean, come on, how many books can truly claim to be a fantasy/western/horror/sci-fi adventure, dealing with everything from philosophy to man-eating spiders? I can honestly say I have never read anything like this series before, and for the most part that was a good thing.
2) Epic. Most of the books in this series gave an unprecedented sense of scale and peril to the proceedings. Particularly in the best books (rankings to follow), there was a sense of mystery and certain doom lurking around every corner. You never quite knew what danger was around the bend, but somehow it was (almost) always logical how the characters got out of these sticky situations.
3) Roland. The main character was difficult to like, especially at first, but it was interesting to see his increasingly humanized side as he formed his crew over the course of the series. Perhaps even more fascinating was watching him gradually return back to his hardened, loner self near the end as the quest for the Tower once again took away much of what was making him human again.
4) Oy. Not quite a dog, Oy was an animal called a Bumbler who had the loveable ability to mimic back people's conversation. What raised Oy above the grade of a mere parrot was his ability to genuinely understand the importance of what he was saying. I was surprised to find, by the end of the final book, that I felt more connected to Oy than any of the human characters, and the end of his story was genuinely moving.
5) Ka. A primary theme in the series was 'Ka', which was their word for 'fate'. Perhaps more than any other work I have read, this book investigated all the ups and down with the notion of fate. Is it right to chalk something up to fate that was a selfish action? Or should one take responsibility for one's own choices? Is this even possible, do we have free will? All of these questions were explored, particularly in the fascinating ending which I will not ruin here.
THE BAD:
1) Uneven. When I was watching a documentary on the works of Beethoven, there was an intriguing analysis by a musicologist on Beethoven's famous 9th symphony. This scholar was essentially saying that because Beethoven's work was so completely original and unprecedented, it was extremely uneven in tone and execution (dare he even say it: flawed!). His point was not that the 9th symphony was bad, of course it was brilliant. His point was that when anyone breaks completely new ground and invents a fundamentally new paradigm, that almost by definition it must be flawed and uneven because there is nothing to compare it to for a quality check. I felt that same way about this series, it's biggest strength was its profound originality but this also resulted in a lot of inconsistency. Some examples to follow below.
2) Pacing. Some books were gripping and tense all the way through, but most were way too bloated for the amount of actual plot they contained. Books 4-6, I'm looking at you!
3) Rules. A key necessity for any fantasy series is that there is a consistent set of rules governing the fantasy universe. Otherwise, there's sort of a sense that "anything goes", which ruins the sense of peril and believability of the universe. This was a huge problem here. It seemed like there were any number of ways that magical events could occur or parallel universes could do funny things, but it was so random that it often ruined the world's sense of reality.
4) Villains. What a missed opportunity!!! The main villains: Walter, Marten, and the Crimson King, are entirely underdeveloped, one-dimensional, and curiously almost entirely absent from any actual proceedings despite playing crucial roles in the story.
THE UGLY:
Stephen King's imagination. A warning for the squeamish: there is some truly gross stuff in this series! I have been told it's not as bad as his straight-up horror books, which I have never read, but yeah there is some dark and messed up crap. I can definitely tell he has some repressed daddy issues, that's for sure.
THE RANKING:
As I mentioned, there were 8 books, here is my final ranking from best to worst:
1) Book 7 - The Dark Tower
2) Book 2 - The Drawing of the Three
3) Book 3 - The Waste Lands
4) Book 4 - Wizard and Glass
5) Book 1 - The Gunslinger
6) Book 5 - Wolves of the Calla
7) Book 4.5 - The Wind Through the Keyhole
8) Book 6 - The Song of Susannah (yuck, what a mess!)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)