Posted on by Abe Austin

Grit vs Surrender- Autonomous or Not?

The Mixed Man)

Yesterday I shared about my personal struggle with addiction, and how I only found liberation as I surrendered my will to God, taking the steps that He set before me and not my own. Then, true healing and freedom blessed my life, but I want to be very clear that it did not, and never could have, come about in the way that I wanted it to. I had to do things that I didn’t want to do, but that God chose for me.

This points to an interesting paradox in the gospel. Autonomy is essential to God’s plans for us. Right from the beginning, God created a man and a woman who were designed with the capacity to make their own choices, and He even gave them a tree to exercise their choice one way or the other.

“But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it, nevertheless, thou mayest choose for thyself, for it is given unto thee,” (Moses 3:17).

If God did not mean for man to make his own choices, God never would have set things up this way.

But also, part of God’s plan is that man should surrender his will. Thus, we are all meant to have the ability to choose our own path, but to then give it up to the Father.

“Submit yourselves therefore to God,” (James 4:7).

“I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service,” (Romans 12:1).

The Ultimate Example)

Notice how Jesus followed this pattern perfectly. His autonomy was supreme and no one else had any power over him:

“I lay down my life. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again,” (John 10:18).

Of course, when it actually came time to lay down his life, Jesus’s own will, his autonomy, pulled him from it. It was his desire that “this cup would pass from him.” Even so, he surrendered that autonomy, declaring to his Father, “not as I will, but as thou wilt,” (Matthew 26:39).

Tomorrow let us think some more about what this means for us personally. We will consider questions such as, how do so many of us, even Christians who fully believe the message of the Bible, fall into this false belief that we can satisfy God while holding onto our autonomy? And what does it look like to truly surrender to the will of the Lord?

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.