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.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Faulty Premises- The Trend

A Recipe for Success)

Whenever people decide to push a social, political, or spiritual movement, they justify the changes that they seek by making certain truth claims. They try to get the world to accept that their core premises are true, or better yet get people to realize that they already agree with those premises. And then, if the premises are true, then the logical response must be to make the proposed social changes.

Every movement, whether its premises are true or not, depends on convincing people of them. Thus, the successful movements are the ones that identify what core premises most immediately lead to their desired outcomes and communicate them in a concise, memorable, and convincing way. When a movement is successful, the premise that was taught then becomes part of the societal fabric. It is now an assumed truth, an axiom for ethical and correct behavior, and future generations will be raised to trust it implicitly.

Unintended Consequences)

But that’s where these movements can start to unravel. The original evangelists of the movement may have only wanted to effect one, specific change, but the rising generations will always take things to their full logical conclusion. They will look at the premise and say, “well if this is true, and it justifies this first step, then surely it justifies the second and the third as well.” And so, they push the matter further than the original evangelists ever intended. Indeed, it is not uncommon for earlier-wave members of a movement to express shock and dismay at what their cause has become in the hands of the later generations. Some of them even express regret for having started the movement at all.

This is a pattern that should give us all pause as we consider the changes that we would wish to see in the world and the methods by which we would achieve them. Every one of us ought to give special consideration to the premises that precede those changes, and what their full potential effect could be, and whether they are even true to begin with.

Tomorrow we’ll look at a specific example of one movement that has gone off the rails, the premise that was indoctrinated in society to make it a success, and why that premise logically led to the unintended consequences we see today.