| |
Christianity Is Over
In what sense is Christianity over? In the sense that there is nothing left to
be done in Christianity. There is nothing to be done because God has done it all,
already. God has worked all things to his glory-all things that have been, that
are, and that are to come. Future events are already in their proper place in God's
mind, and their manifestations unto us surely will come into being. It is as if
we Christians have been ushered into a divine theater to watch the outworkings of
God's finished work of art, a work of art that for us extends through time and space
but for God is completely and at once in his mind.
But why can I say this? Because I hold to the belief that God always has his original
plans fulfilled on time and without a hitch. From our human perspective, we recognize
that having a plan is one thing and that having perfectly implemented that plan
without change is a completely different thing. Between these two poles often lies
much frustration for us. But never for a moment do these poles genuinely frustrate
God as he works out the coming-into-being of his unchanged plan. He never has to
rearrange details or circumvent obstacles. His plans are perfectly implemented
exactly according to the time-table he himself has chosen for them. This is my
presupposition: God cannot be thwarted in his plans.
Consider the consequences that we would face within Christianity for holding to
a view that allows for Gods being thwarted in one way or another: fear, uncertainty,
hesitancy, regret, pressure, and so forth. Why these things? Simply because if
God were not in complete control of all things past, present, and future for Christianity,
then by definition either someone other than God would be in control of a few things
or all things, or else either a few things or all things would be without any external
control at all. If the first option is the case, then although there is someone
in charge, this someone would be a being other than God, so this someone would not
share in all the attributes of God. We can assume, then, that this being is not
perfect, since God is perfect. But an imperfect being can make imperfect decisions,
and this, in turn, would lead us to assume that the particular part of Christianity
that the being-other-than-God controls can go wrong. Thus, the fear, the regret,
and the uncertainty for us as participants in Christianity come into play. However,
if the second option is the case, then a part of the future of Christianity is genuinely
chaotic, or all of it is, and how can it be said that such a Christianity truly
reflects the nature of God?
But in spite of these conclusions, Christianity has been regularly viewed as a genuine
collaboration between God and man-a genuine collaboration implies that man is directly
responsible for some of it-simply because if there is no collaboration, if God indeed
absolutely does it all, then what would become of man's will? (Is this not the haunting
question, the question that lies behind so many theological discussions and abrasions?)
But will-what is will, anyway? Is it not simply our assent toward a particular
option or action? Suppose that before us stand two options: to do x or not to do
x. We understand the options and we assent to one of them: we say that this is
the option that has our allegiance, or our backing, and then we do it. But what
if God commanded our minds to give assent to that particular option as opposed to
the other one? This is possible: God has that power of creation through which,
in the beginning, all that is was formed. Thus, God can simply speak to our minds,
if he wished, and our minds would follow his bidding, for who or what can oppose
these reality-forming commands of God?
If God indeed commanded our minds to assent to a particular option, we could not
argue against our assenting, simply because our minds are the very instruments we
use to express the assent. For example, if God from heaven would command our minds
to be convinced that dogs can fly, then, since God can make all of reality obey
him (as evidenced in God's creative act in the beginning), our minds would be convinced
that dogs fly. And how would we then argue the contrary? We would be thoroughly
convinced in this mischief. In fact, we would argue the opposite-that dogs do indeed
fly-for that is the action of one who is convinced, and thus we would 'own up' to
this absurdity and call it 'our belief ', in this way we ourselves would accept
everything associated with being responsible for this belief.
To particularize this general argument, the same can be said concerning man's ability
to love. Many people hesitate to fully embrace the fullness of God's control because
if God did control all, how can it be said that he enjoys love from man, since real
love must be freely given? But genuine love does not solely spring from free choice.
In fact, it does not have to come from choice at all. What if God simply commanded
our minds and hearts to love him consistently and deeply? If God commanded us to be
in genuine love with him, we would indeed be, by definition, in genuine love with him,
for what things can resist those particular commands of God that bring things into
being itself? In this love we would not stop to consider whether God violated any
of our 'inalienable' rights: people in love do not hold grudges against their lovers.
To put it crudely, if God flicked on our love-switch, it would be impossible for us
not to love, as it would be impossible for a room to remain in darkness when I turn
on the light. Would this be genuine love? We wouldn't be able to tell the difference.
Is man a robot, then? Yes and no. Man is a robot in the sense that his actions
cannot be otherwise, since God controls everything, but man is not a robot because
although he does not choose his actions, he assents to them, and therefore he
can be viewed as owning his actions. He does not deny that he did action x, that
he agreed to do it at some point in time, that at this point doing option x looked
good to him. On such a confession rests his responsibility: on the fact that it
looked like the thing to do, not on the basis that it was the thing actually done.
Because these things appear true to me, I hold Christianity to be over in the same
way a book written a century ago is finished for me even though I may be only in
middle of its story. Who can truly resist God's commands in this respect, and if
nothing stands in the way of God, is it not acceptable to assume that he will perfectly
implement his plan, just as it is acceptable to assume that a man would indeed reach
out to obtain that which he desires if nothing, figuratively or literally, stood
in the way of his reach? For me Christianity is over, yet I will still do things,
to be sure. But I will do them knowing that absolutely whatever I do has been planned
for me to do from the beginning, whether it be an act of saintly holiness or of
utter depravity. In all this I trust that Christ alone, not I or my actions, keeps
me from God's wrath and in his blessing, and that one day I will see how every one
of the actions is a perfect, Christ-exalting fit in the present puzzle of my existence.
Furthermore, I am convinced that the tenets expressed here are ultimately in accord
with the biblical text, even though I did not mention any references, and I maintain
that these paragraphs were not written in ignorance to the objections and questions
that rise from the traditional interpretation of these passages. I am certainly
referring to the texts that point toward man's rewards in heaven (how can man expect
a reward if he really does nothing at all?), that mention the numerous New-Testament
directives and commands (why is man commanded to obey when he has no real choice
over what he will do?), that describe the nature and necessity of prayer (why pray
for the future if the future is secure?), and so forth. But my purpose with this
essay was from the beginning only to lay forth some of the necessary blocks in the
foundation of only one essential truth-that God is in control of absolutely everything
in reality-not to produce here and now a corpus of belief addressing all these derivative
questions. There will be time enough for that, I hope.
Finally, I cannot deny that with these few paragraphs I do hope to stimulate excitement
in your mind and to bring back to life for you, the reader, the old controversies
that meant so much in years past. These are the issues worth argumentation and
rumination, as opposed to the many pseudo-issues of today's Christian ambience.
These are the issues that go to the core of things and there become the lineaments
of a person, not a movement, and that is what you and I are-persons, not movements.
- T. H. Rockett, 27 May 2004
These articles are intended to stimulate your thinking in a variety of areas;
please email driven to One
with any questions or comments.
|
|
