Posted on by Abe Austin

Grit vs Surrender- What I Held Back

My Enslavement)

In my last post I promised that today I would share a personal example of my own struggles with vice, how I exerted great effort to overcome them and failed, but then found that freedom could come at a much simpler price.

I have already shared before about my addiction to pornography, and how I spent many years under its power. Perhaps some people do not feel guilty when they take their first steps into addiction, but I most certainly did. From the very first day, I was ashamed and disappointed with myself. From the very first day I tried to stop. I had fits and starts, I tried to make deals with God, I told myself again and again that this next time would be the last time. But no matter what I tried, I remained a slave to my lust for twenty long years.

Because for twenty years I wasn’t willing to try the one thing that would actually work.

Practically from the very start of my addiction, I knew that I needed to make confession. My conscience would consistently prick me to shine a light on this secret shame, but I would always make an excuse not to. I told myself that all I needed was God. He and I would work this out somehow, no one else needed to be involved. God would know how to fix me. That was ironic, given that I was deliberately ignoring what God was telling me to do in my heart.

For so many years I couldn’t make a confession because I couldn’t tolerate being seen by another person at that level of intimacy. It was a boundary that had never crossed in my life, not even in my marriage, and frankly I didn’t think I would ever be willing to have it crossed. That was the part of my autonomy that I kept holding on to, the surrender that I wasn’t willing to make.

Light Streams In)

Then, one day, I finally accepted that there was no salvation in the path that I was walking. I finally admitted to myself that I was getting worse, not better, and that as ashamed as I was of what I had done thus far, I would yet do things more shameful. I realized that for all of my attempts to keep myself whole, I was fracturing apart even so.

That was when I decided to finally make the surrender that God was asking of me. That was when I made my confession. Not just once, not just twice, but over and over again to my wife, to spiritual leaders, to therapists, to twelve-step groups, and even to all of you reading this blog. I surrendered my need for darkness, and finally let the light in.

There were other surrenders that came as a part of this, too. I surrendered my need to hate and punish myself. I surrendered my pride, my need to solve things on my own. I surrendered the fate of my future.

Making these surrenders wasn’t easy, but the transformation that followed them was. In fact, the transformation was effortless. The very changes that I had been trying so hard to make for twenty years took place on their own practically overnight. I didn’t have to wrestle them into submission, I didn’t have to choke them out, I didn’t have to force myself to be worthy by sheer force of will. None of that. I just changed, and there’s no explanation other than that God worked a miracle inside of me.

Now, to be clear, I am not saying that I am impervious to temptation now. I do still need to watch myself. I do still need to make deliberate choices to remain true to who I was born to be. I do still need to remove myself from situations that are going in a bad direction. But for the first time I actually can do those things, and they actually work! I am not free from temptation, but I am free to deny it.

In my following posts I will break down a few key themes in this story, but for now I hope it is clear that God’s way is not one of constant, painful exertion. Following Him and becoming a better person is supposed to be easy and joyful, not tedious and brutal. Jesus was really telling the truth when he said, “Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light” (Matthew 11:28, 30). In the following posts, we will examine more closely how that could be.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Grit vs Surrender- The Gritty Life

Eternal Conflict)

In my last post I discussed how God’s commandments invite us to relinquish the slavery of our sin. Ego, lust, and vanity all make demands of us, they make us do things that are harsh and damaging, but then God sets us free. Those of us that see God’s commandments as oppressive assume that vice is a basic human need. Only when we see vice for the chains that they are, do we understand that God’s intention for us is liberation.

Thus far this message of freedom has been directed to those that suffer under the tyranny of sin but have not yet realized it. Today, though, we will shift focus to those that understand the greater liberty of righteousness, but who struggle with the part that still clings to their vices.

There are many faithful, including myself, who know their vices, who wish to be rid of them, who believe that life will be better and freer once we do, but who still keep a part of those vices even so. Many-a-time we try to make a clean cut from our old ways but continually wind up back where we started. Some of us have simply resolved that this is our cross to bear throughout the rest of our lives, never accepting the vice, always fighting against its pull, but never being totally rid of it either. From this view, grit and effort are simply part of what it means to be a Christian.

Still Holding Back)

And there may actually be some truth in that perspective, but also there is some lie. I will speak from my own experience. I have certainly struggled back and forth, working my hardest against my carnal self, trying to make some progress by taking two-steps-forward-and-one-step-back. As I have investigated this experience, though, I have found that the real root of my struggle is that I’m still holding something back from God.

Initially, I didn’t even realize that I was doing so. And even when I started to assume that I was still holding something back, I didn’t know right away what it was. I had assumed that I just enjoyed my vices, but on closer inspection, the reasons for holding onto them went much deeper than surface desire. Typically, I do the vices as a way to cover something more tender and vulnerable that I’m not yet ready to commit to the will of God.

Thus, I try to make myself better, but because I’m not identifying the core vulnerability and not ready to surrender it to God, I’m destined to fail. I am setting myself up for a life of continually trying, and slipping, and trying again. It is a hard life to live. It is a gritty life. It might be a step up from a life of wanton indulgence, but it is still not the life that God meant for me to live.

Thus far, I’ve spoken of things in general. Tomorrow, I’ll give a specific example of a vice that I struggled with for years, and the unwillingness to surrender that was behind it.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Grit vs Surrender- Liberation vs Burden

Thou Shalt Not)

There are many that say the restrictive aspect of the commandments is made obvious by how many of them start with the words, “thou shalt not.” How can anyone dispute that God is trying to oppress us, given how He prohibits us from doing things? It seems from this view that a truly permissive and liberating set of commandments would be ones that started with “thou shalt.” But is that true?

Just looking at the two phrases at their most fundamental level, “thou shalt” is a call to action and “thou shalt not” is a call to inaction. “Thou shalt” requires doing, “thou shalt not” simply requires being. “Thou shalt” is effortful, “thou shalt not” is restful.

Even when we consider historical examples of inappropriate “thou shalts” and “thou shalt nots,” it is times when people were compelled to act against their will that seem even more oppressive than times when people were restricted from their will.

Or consider these thought experiments, would it be more perverse for me to require you to not have sex with someone that you want to, or to require you to have sex with someone that you do not want to? To not be allowed to speak a truth, or to be compelled to spread a lie? To refrain from punishing a person that you see as guilty, or to hurt a person that you see as innocent?

In short, it is strange to see people rankle under the term “thou shalt not,” when clearly its opposite has far more potential to be oppressive.

The True Taskmasters)

Of course, one might say the thought experiments I provided were poor examples, because they all involved being compelled to do or not do things against our desires. The problem with the commandments is that they hold us back from the things that we want to do, while a life of fun invites us to do them.

To that, I say, you haven’t yet seen just how dark “fun” can be.

That which we call “fun” is nothing more than indulging our appetites. Our appetites for food, for sex, for attention, for endorphins. And anyone with experience and perception will soon find out that appetites are the true slavemasters of all mankind. It is a mark of immaturity to still think that feeding the appetite is harmless fun. It is a mark of wisdom to know that what is once given to the appetite by choice, is soon taken by force. Ever notice that all of the twelve step programs are for people who became slaves to the “fun” things?

Just ask any world-weathered soul what it’s like to go on a bender and be made useless when everyone needed you most, or to sleep with someone you don’t even know because it’s the closest you can get to feeling loved, or to take drugs just to feel again.

These aren’t the actions of people doing what they want to do. These are the actions of people who are actually being oppressed, people being pulled by the “thou shalts” of a cruel and demanding taskmaster. Their appetites are their god, and that god makes them do things that they don’t want to do. They don’t like the music that is playing anymore, but their feet keep dancing to the tune. “I don’t want to do this anymore!” they cry out, but the chant continues, “Thou shalt! Thou shalt! Thou shalt!”

For people in such dire straits, there is no message more merciful than a God who would finally stop that dance. A God who would have the kindness, the leniency, and the liberality to finally give them “thou shalt not.”

Posted on by Abe Austin

Grit vs Surrender- The Common Struggle

Moral Grit)

It is the common struggle of man to strive to be better, and to fall short more often than not. We have certain aspirations of personal character, some of them come from our religious upbringing, some from societal norms, and some that we have chosen just for ourselves. And though we might be truly convinced of the merit of these goals, our convictions still run into opposition in the form of laziness and sensuous pleasure.

There are those that see these struggles and wonder why anyone should even bother. They are disciples of hedonism and self-idolatry, who feel that the only reason needed to not change a behavior is to find personal pleasure in it. If it feels “good” then it is good, and any attempt to cease it is oppressive and restricting.

There are also those of a spiritual frame of mind who approach their moral struggles with a surprisingly similar view. Their main distinction is that they say keeping the commandments is worth it, that the rewards are greater than the personal pleasure surrendered, but they still see the entire enterprise as an exercise in self-oppression. They believe that they must flagellate themselves into obedience, psychologically if not physically.

Thus, there are many atheists and theists alike who see the developing of moral character as taking real grit and determination, forcing oneself to be better in spite of all contrary desires and temptations.

Another Way)

I would like to suggest that this isn’t the correct way for moral change to occur. It isn’t the way that God ever had in mind for us. I believe that Jesus was sincere when he said, “Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light” (Matthew 11:28, 30). Jesus isn’t saying his way is easy because we won’t require change, as the hedonist would have, but neither is he saying that that change will come through struggle and punishment, as the ascetic would have. Counter-intuitive as it sounds, Jesus is promising a life of absolutely radical transformation, and that it will occur easily and lightly.

Well, eventually easily and lightly. As we will discuss in this study, there is an initial moment that is, in fact, very hard. Following Jesus begins with a little death, a moment of deep, difficult, surrender. For both the hedonist and the ascetic, the reason that they have not found the easiness of Jesus’s path is that they have not gone through that surrender. Whether because they are an outsider who rejects the Lord outright, or because they are an insider who is still trying to achieve sainthood with pride intact. Either way, they haven’t gone through that little death and so change still looks hard and oppressive.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Look Higher

All too often we limit our perspective when trying to remedy’s society’s ills. We see what appears to be immediately wrong around us and we try to implement what we see as the immediate solution to that problem. But this is like staring down at our feet while hiking on a trail. We may find the path of least resistance, but it may very well lead us off the edge of a cliff!

To navigate uncertain terrain, you must raise your view and fix it upon your ultimate destination. Only by focusing on our highest ideals, even the standard of heaven, can we make the right societal changes, both in the short and long term.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Elements of a Spiritual Journey

If your spiritual journey does not include a time of
Guilt
Shame
Failure
And being saved
Then you don’t have a spiritual journey

Posted on by Abe Austin

Not Seeking Forgiveness

.

Some say, “Jesus loves me just the way I am”
As an excuse to not seek forgiveness
And any that do not seek, will not find

Posted on by Abe Austin

Faulty Premises- A Better Example

Scrutinize Premises)

Over the last two posts we discussed two social movements which made their gains under slogans that were untrue. For feminism, its “what a man can do, a woman can do as well,” was explicitly false, describing an equivalency that never has and never will exist between the sexes. For the LGB movement, its “love is love,” was implicitly false, as the subtext of that statement was that “any romantic or sexual union was good and equal to any other,” which we easily disproved yesterday.

The fact that each movement was founded on a lie means that either the changes being championed were either motivated by the wrong reasons or were fundamentally wrong no matter the motivation. Since each movement prevailed by getting society to accept its false premises, society was then set on a track that could only lead to harm the further it was pursued.

As mentioned at the start of this study, every movement is trying to convince society of some premise, which, if accepted, naturally leads to the changes that the movement desires. We should highly scrutinize any such premise, as if it is accepted its effects will go far beyond its initial campaign. We need premises that are good and true. Even if our cause is just, but the premise is faulty, then the long-term damage will be worse than any short-term positive outcome. And if our cause is not just, then the premise will always be faulty, no matter how we try to work it.

Hate and Love)

To finish this series, I wanted to present an example of another campaign slogan, one that has at its core a truer premise. When I think of Martin Luther King Jr.’s branch of the Civil Rights, one of the key phrases that defined that movement was, “hate cannot drive out hate, only love can do that.” This was a premise which, if accepted, would lead his followers to treat their foes with kindness, would encourage onlookers to join the cause of brotherly love, and would make his foes question their motivations. Thus, it was a premise which, if accepted, would likely lead to the changes that the movement sought for.

But we dare not only consider its short-term effectiveness, we also have to consider the truth of the statement itself. It wouldn’t matter how noble King’s motivations were, or how good his short-term objectives were, if the banner by which he got there was twisted against reality.

As with the “love is love” slogan, let us consider the subtext of these words. The “hate” that Martin Luther King Jr. is referring to is that of one group of people seeking to harm another, and the “love” that he is referring to is one group of people showing kindness and grace to another. King is presenting love and hate as opposites, and just as only light can illuminate the darkness, and only filling can remedy emptiness, and only good can overcome evil, so, too, only love can drive out hate.

Notice that hate is both a state and an action. If there is a state of hate in the world, and we attempt to erase it through more acts of hate, we leave those acts behind to be the new state of hate. Hate used as a cure produces more of itself—and invites another cycle. It is trying to wipe away filth with mud; thus, no matter how much we scrape away, we keep adding more grime. Hate therefore requires a different active force to extinguish it, an anti-hate. Something that can dispel hate, without regenerating it. Anti-hate means the opposite of hate, and as mentioned before, the opposite of hate is love.

To me, the underlying logic of King’s slogan was sound, and therefore worthy of being adopted. Not only for the changes that it would cause in the Civil Rights, but because any further changes downstream would likely be sound and positive as well.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Faulty Premises- Trojan Horses

What is Love?)

In the last post we examined the feminist movement, and the explicitly false statement, “what a man can do, a woman can do as well.” As I pointed out, anything built on a twisted foundation was sure to lead to twisted outcomes down the road.

Now, let’s consider another example, one that is more subtle. Around 20 years ago the LGB movement (as it was known then) entered the mainstream and claimed many victories in social and legal status. If there were a single, defining slogan of this campaign, it must have been that “love is love.”

This is an interesting statement because it is, on the surface, obviously true. It is a tautology. If love is equivalent to anything, it must be love. But, of course, the slogan means more than just that. In addition to its explicit meaning is an implicit one. The “love” at the start of the assertion stands for the sexual and romantic relationships that the LGB community engaged in, and the “love” at the end stands for either traditional, heterosexual marriage, or for the abstract concept of love, which is considered to be one of the greatest goods. Thus, “love is love” is standing in for, “my relationship is just the same as yours,” or “my sexual or romantic relationship is always good.”

And these more specific claims are obviously false. I believe that all of us can think of multiple sexual and romantic unions that we would label as bad and different from the ordinary. Polyamory, incest, AI sexbots, pedophilia, and bestiality all come immediately to mind.

A Slippery Slope)

Of course, back when the LGB movement was really gaining traction, there were many who foretold of even worse sexual perversion being championed later on. This is the argument that is classically known as “the slippery slope.” It is important to note, though, that this slippery slope was not simply an argument of “once you given them some advantage, they’ll press it for more and more,” it was, “the premise by which you justify this change also justifies more.” It was therefore not idle fearmongering, but a reasonable analysis of the movement’s central logic.

Maybe those in the LGB movement of 20 years ago only meant “love is love” to secure legal marriage for gay couples, but once Pandora’s Box was opened, once the rising generation was inculcated with the belief that anything under the umbrella of “love is love” goes, then that logic would necessarily lead to further transformation.

In my last post I mentioned the transgender movement as being downstream from feminism. It is also clearly downstream of the LGB movement, giving that acronym its now-familiar T. If there is no difference between men and women, and every kind of sexual identity is good, then transgenderism has to be a logical conclusion of those two premises. Even as transgenderism has seen a sharp decline in popularity over the last year, it remains to be seen if the faulty premises of feminism and the LGB movement will also decline. If not, then you can be sure that we have not yet seen the end of their unintended consequences.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Faulty Premises- Campaign Slogans

What a Man Can Do)

Today we are looking at an example of a campaign that was built on a faulty premise that led to extreme results beyond its original intentions: feminism. This movement has had a few campaign slogans, but arguably the most prominent were the ones that begin with “What a man can do…”

Interestingly, there have been three variations of this slogan, each going further than the last. In the late 19th century it was, “What a man can do, a woman can try.” Then, at the start of the 20th century, under the suffrage movement, it became, “What a man can do, a woman can do as well.” Then, still later, it became, “What a man can do, a woman can do even better.”

Obviously, the last two versions of the slogan are explicitly untrue. In reality, we understand that biological differences make certain things possible for men and impossible for women and vice versa. Of course, the falseness of the statements was part of the design, making them provocative and controversial. One might say these statements were never meant to be taken literally, just as a rhetorical flourish.

Fair enough, but that raises the question, “what are the long-term effects of founding a movement on a faulty premise?” Even if the faulty premise is tongue-in-cheek, can it really portend good things down the road when that is your foundation? Perhaps it is effective at getting the changes that you want today, but what sort of changes are likely to follow later on?

From Twisted Beginnings)

A movement that accepts a lie at its origin is a movement with a twisted foundation. It is somewhat misaligned with reality at the very beginning, and it is sure to become even more misaligned as more and more structure is built on top of it. This is especially true when we realize that yesterday’s rhetoric becomes tomorrow’s dogma. In my experience, there are many that have taken the provocative, tongue-in-cheek message of “what a man can do, a woman can do as well,” and actually believe it literally. They take it as an undisputed fact that men and women are totally equal in all regards, and that leads to some shocking conclusions.

Most recently, this line of thinking was clearly a main contributor to the transgender movement, which fully embraced the idea that there was little or no difference between a man or a woman, and that one could become the definition of the other at will. I think it’s safe to say that such a notion was far from the mind of old-time suffragettes, but this is simply the long-term consequences of the seeds that they, themselves, planted.

This is an example of a campaign built upon an explicit lie, but what about a campaign built upon implicit lies? We’ll look at an example of that tomorrow.