Conversations with Juan Pt. 2

Juan: Thanks for the responses, I'll try to give some follow up in an organized manner.

Patch: Sure thing.

Juan: Regarding Christianity as religion vs. philosophy. I'm kind of making this up as I go, but I'd say that religion is a concrete institution whereas philosophy is an abstract one.

Patch: Agreed.

Juan: Religion centers itself in the temple, whereas philosophy is centered in the individual.

Patch: I also agree there.

Juan: Still, the distinction is not so black and white,and the two generally reinforce one another. As this relates to my childhood, or rather childhood in general, I guess when one is young the sense of self, of individuality, is not so well definied as later on in life, and so at an earlier age it is easier to instill religion and later on address philosophy.

Patch: I agree that at an earlier age, our understanding of God can be very rule-based (just like our relationship with our parents). I can do this...I can't do that...why won't God let me do that...etc. It does become more philosophical as we grow older; understand our world at a higher level; and develop as individuals. Now let me suggest a definitional difference between religion and philosophy for myself. I define religion as a set of rules and regulations that people use to get right with "God," "Allah, "Mother Nature," etc. Philosophy centres on the understanding of reality, the understanding of relationships, conduct in this reality, etc. I agree that the two intertwine quite a bit, but these are the definitional differences I will draw between the two in our discussions, Juan.

Juan: Concerning my first question, I'm not sure where I stand, but I agree that free will is a combination of or perhaps a bridge between soul and body. Likewise, I agree that it is both action and state--a state demanding/requiring action. This to me, brings me to believe then that the soul serves as nothing more than the seat for free will as action/state. The soul expresses itself by executing actions through the body. In this way, the body serves as a mediator between soul and everything else (environment, universe, etc.). How does this sound to you?

Patch: I am uncertain if I can call the soul the seat of free will as a separate entity from my body. It is very difficult for me to draw discrete distinctions between soul and body (except perhaps that one reflects materiality, and the other reflects immateriality). I believe that soul and body are so functionally intertwined that I cannot give authority to one over the other. I confess that I am not a big fan of the neo-Platonist attitude that has pervaded much of Christian history (soul is ruler over body, soul is reality, body is un-reality). I believe that much of this has lead to a sort of escapism in Christianity that suggests we do not have to worry about this world since it is all going to hell in a handbasket. Christ was very flesh-oriented in his stories. He heals bodies. He gives earthly dignity to individuals. He is resurrected into a body and not as an immaterial soul. I guess that I do not want to fall into a concept of no redemption for this world. I believe that Christ suggests otherwise, and promises the redemption of this physical world.

Juan: On the second question (and as it relates to quiestion 2b)... this is a tricky one, which is why I asked what your thoughts are and whether there was any explanation in the bible. I'm going to present my train of thought as I understand it now, and see if and where you. First off, my somewhat shaky assumption is that sin is a (necessary) result of our free will. Sin is not so much the action of bad deeds, so much as choosing to do them.

Patch: I would certainly agree here.

Juan: Through our free will we are given a choice between actions we accept as good and evil, humans being imperfect do bad deeds at least sometimes.The reason I think this assumption is so shaky as it relates to Christianity is since before Adam and Eve ate of the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil they were incapable of sin then I would be forced to say that they lacked free will. If they didn't have free will than how were they capable of committing the first sin. It is a paradox. What do you think?

Patch: I listened to a talk by a certain individual recently on a very similar concept. The probem of this particular talk was 1) Christ comes to fulfill the Law and free us from Law as a way to get right with God 2) Why was the Law instituted in the first place? 3) As a spiritual tutor for the people of Israel in their youth as a nation 4) Why bother creating people with a need for the Law in the first place if the Law was going to be overturned?

Eventually, this all comes down to an "I don't know" position because ultimately, we will always hit a point where we cannot fathom God's understanding for a particular plan. I know that this can grate on empirically-minded individuals, but it's true. Eventually any line of philosophical reasoning hits a point where we say, "I don't know."

I believe this is where I stand on your question about Adam and Eve. I'm not sure why God allowed them to commit the first sin; or why he supposedly gave them the ability to do so. My idealist explanation would be that God had a plan for His creation. Sortof like we are an artwork in progress. We've been allowed to break and fall in an effort to create something out of it all. But that's just my fallible and biased reasoning.

Juan: The second assumption is that free will is necessary for the fulfillment of good deeds, and also for self-fulfillment. In other words, free will is good and more important than happiness. (Well, this may be the shakier assumption.) Well, based on those assumptions I look to the question: Is there free will in heaven and/or hell? If I say there is free will in heaven, then from the first assumption I'd say that sin would occur in heaven, which as far as I know is contrary to the definition of heaven.If I say there isn't free will in heaven, then from the second assumption I'd say heaven is not so interesting a place, or at least that life is more fulfilling than the afterlife. Based on this I'd choose life (balance of good and evil) over heaven (infinite bliss), but I guess I'd still choose infinite bliss over infinite torture (hell). Actually, I could interpret the last statement as abandoning free will in the afterlife as the dissolution of the individual, which is in line with my personal beliefs on the afterlife, but mine don't account for the other extreme that is the utter isolation of the individual (my interpretation of hell). What is your take on all this? I understand the Bible may not be explicit about these issues, but do you have any feelings?

Patch: First off, I would suggest that we will have a different understanding of our existence in Heaven. Paul talks about "the end" (eschatologically referring to the return of Christ) like this: Now we see things imperfectly as in a poor mirror, but then we will see everything with perfect clarity. All that I know now is partial and incomplete, but then I will know everything completely, just as God knows me now." (1 Cor. 13: 12) This would suggest that how we conceive of free will, individuality, God, and sin will all change when we enter Heaven. We will see God's plan and his movements more clearly. Therefore, it is possible that infinite bliss in Heaven will look quite different from the way that we conceive of it here. All we know is that eternal life in Heaven promises comfort, faith, hope, and love.

I believe that there is another passage in the Bible that suggests the dissolution of the individual in Heaven, but it doesn't come to my mind right now. I will look into that for you.

Somehow, (and I don't mean to be dismissive of your questions and concerns) I don't know where I stand on free will in Heaven and Hell because I have little concern for it right now. Currently, I focus on the present and how I wish to conduct my will (if it is indeed free) in this life. My initial feeling on your question; however, is that I will cognate and act on a different level in Heaven. Perhaps God will reveal to me that I wasn't acting freely the whole time. I'm sure that I would react differently to that in Heaven than on Earth. Or He could reveal to me where I made bad and good choices, and what it all amounted to.

Juan: Ok, that's enough for today, I look forward to any responses or comments you have, I will address the third question in another message.By the way, it goes without saying that if you have any questions for me of any nature, feel free to ask.

Patch: Sure, I have a question for you, Juan (and this is not an accusatory question; I simply wish to see where you're coming from on this discussion). What is your prime concern with free will and your spirituality? In other words, what bearing does it have on how you understand or conduct yourself spiritually? Is it a reflection on your choice (pardon the implicit pun) of spirituality?

Living Life With A View From The End

This past weekend, my students and I congregated with other students from across Ontario to discuss what it means to live life with a view from the end. Our speaker, Eric Stolte, presented a challenging series of talks that deeply engaged many of us. Here are some of my thoughts from that weekend:

Eric spoke about the temples that we build in our lives: value/worth; performance; security; etc. He suggested that when we worship these things, we lose joy, peace, contentment, and more. I strongly agree with this.

3 years ago, I went through my own struggle with value, worth, and security through performance (arguably, I still endure this struggle today, but this was a particularly dark time of struggle). After I failed to gain acceptance in any of the English doctorate programs to which I had applied, I found my entire world swept out from underneath me. During my time as a graduate student, I defined myself by my academic performance, and by my skill as a teacher and scholar. The academic world had become my altar, so to speak, and my entire life revolved around it.

When I failed to continue in that career, I was forced with a huge worldview change. Everything that I used to define myself was taken away, and I was forced to deal with the impending question of "Who am I now?" As a result, I faced much loss of joy, contentment, and certainly peace.

Eventually, I rediscovered my peace through faithful prayer, loving support from others, and a new career as a university campus chaplain. I rediscovered my worth in God's eyes; a worth that surpasses any worldly measure of value and worth; and a worth that knows no bounds.

I like to think that this was my rich young man moment. In Matt. 19: 16-30, Jesus confronts a rich young man who wants to find the way to eternal life. Jesus responds that the young man should "go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." When faced with the challenge to define his worth without anything that the world has given him, the rich young man turns around and cannot face the challenge. Not coincidentally, Jesus then goes on to describe how many people who seem "first" in this world will be "last" in the future and in heaven.

Jesus confronts the rich young man with a more authentic way of viewing his self-worth. I like to think that when I failed to continue in my academic career, God challenged me to re-define my self-worth. I had to replace my trust in the support and praise of professors and institutions, with trust in the unconditional love of God.

So far, the experience has been tremendously liberating. Perhaps Chuck Palahniuk's character of Tyler Durden did put it best when he said: "It's only after we've lost everything that we are free to do anything."