Tag: faith

Childlike Humility, Adult Pride and Existential Anxiety

· Leave a comment ·

“Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.”

What about being like children is necessary to be Christ-like?

Children are immature, unexperienced, and unknowledgeable. But they’re also trusting, unpretentious, and totally dependent on their parents. They’re the best illustration of the proper relationship we need to have to God. Of course, like most metaphors, they’re imperfect like any human attempt at communicating complex ideas; however, we can identify the key insight. Jesus wants us to learn how to be humble like a child.

This means unlearning some of what we consider to be virtues of maturing into adults. We think it’s sophisticated to become more skeptical and critical, more in-tune with the nuances of blending in with adult society and being adept at climbing social hierarchies, and becoming increasingly independent and self-sufficient. But these are virtues in a broken world. We wouldn’t have to be skeptical if there weren’t people out there trying to deceive us, or try to create a façade to conform with society if we were perfectly power, or be self-sufficient if our basic needs were always cared for. In trying to adapt to this broken world, we grow in pride.

Augustine considered pride the foundational sin. He wrote, “It was pride that changed angels into devils; it is humility that makes men as angels.” What is pride? In short, it’s a need for superiority. The idea to be better than others, which is an antithesis of serving others. CS Lewis write, “Pride gets no pleasure out of having something, only out of having more of it than the next man. We say that people are proud of being rich, or clever, or good-looking, but they are not. They are proud of being richer, or cleverer, or better-looking than others.” Pride chases dominance and control, and it leads to so many other sins, which is why these writers argue it’s the foundational sin. The pursuit of superiority of others leads not only to careless selfishness but an active contempt towards others. It warps into anger, sorrow, greed, and all the other categories of sins. And, most dangerously, it pushes us into an internal state of establishing a kingdom where we worship ourselves and our own aspirations. This isolates us from God.

CS Lewis expanded on this idea: “Pride leads to every other vice: it is the complete anti-God state of mind.” The reason pride is the foundational sin and leads to every other sin is because it’s the first step in completely turning away from God. Like a child severing their ties to their from the guidance of their parents, we can’t be corrected if we look only to ourselves and set ourselves as the objects of worship.

CS Lewis warns, “As long as you are proud, you cannot know God. A proud man is always looking down on things and people: and, of course, as long as you are looking down, you cannot see something that is above you.” Pride blinds us from the presence of God because we believe we can take the place of God and determine what will happen next on our own strength and wisdom. We’re the adults. We’re in charge of things and need to use our skills to push forward and shape our future. It sounds so obviously foolish, but we fall into this trap without knowing it. Not only is pride the foundational sin, it’s the sin that is the most subtle.

CS Lewis writes, “The devil laughs. He is perfectly content to see you becoming chaste and brave and self-controlled provided, all the time, he is setting up in you the Dictatorship of Pride—just as he would be quite content to see your chilblains cured if he was allowed, in return, to give you cancer.” Our language is limited in capturing and understanding this foundational sin. We can be “proud” of our loved ones or “proud” of doing good work, and it’s hard to call this a sin. As long as our minds are outside of ourselves and we’re “proud” without giving glory to ourselves and instead praising others, we’re far away from the insidious evil of pride that might be present if we’re “proud” of our loved ones because of how it reflects on us or “proud” of good work was done by you. Even a crude proud attitude to desire to be celebrated because you want the approval of others from a place of insecurity is still better than the “pride” of thinking the approval of others is not necessary because you are so much superior; of course, as CS Lewis advises, it’s better to forget about ourself altogether and serve others and the Lord.

That’s how we fight pride. “True humility is not thinking less of yourself; it is thinking of yourself less.” CS Lewis continues, “Do not imagine that if you meet a really humble man he will be what most people call ‘humble’ nowadays: he will not be a sort of greasy, smarmy person, who is always telling you that, of course, he is nobody. Probably all you will think about him is that he seemed a cheerful, intelligent chap who took a real interest in what you said to him.” We need child-like humility with all the wisdom and strength of being an adult. We need the wisdom from God to discern and pull apart what’s sinful pride from ourselves and our broken world from the grace and maturity that we’re given from God. We’re tricked by pride into thinking that being more sophisticated and mature means being more confident in our own wisdom and being more self-reliant. But it takes more wisdom and strength to be humble. How much mental strength does it take for Job to continue worshipping God when everything is taken away from him rather than cursing him and taking life into his own hands? How much wisdom does it take for Moses to defy all conventional wisdom of the day and take the Israelites out of Egypt?

The best illustration of child-like humility being warped by this world comes from the period of transition to adulthood: teenagers. Children are awkwardly transitioning into members of this broken world. They search for a new identity away from their parents. They have a naïve belief that heir limited worldview is superior to their parents’. They seek their own freedom and independence from their parents. They come across new hurts, they become skeptical and less trusting, and their childlike joy becomes filtered through having to adapt to the norms of this broken world.

There’s a relationship between pride and a certain kind of anxiety that I can’t get a clear thought about. Maybe an existential anxiety. But I do know that humility is the antidote. I think the essential nature of pride that puts ourselves in the place of God comes into conflict with a world where we aren’t God. We come short. And the anxiety comes from this tension between our internal states and the outer world. But I think this anxiety helps us return to God, like pain helps us to avoid the hot fire. In perfect humility, there is no existential anxiety. In fact, there is no fear of what comes next. There is true freedom in humility because, in total dependence of God, there is nothing to fear in the next step we take.

Christianity’s P.R. Problem

· Leave a comment ·

Christianity has really bad public relations, and I think a lot has to do with the Christian right or Christian conservatives. Again, Christian right is diverse and have internal divides, but I’m generalizing to what the majority or average Christian conservative right and behaves. The Christian right advocate for policies and legislation aligned with their flavor conservative Christian beliefs, like pro-life advocacy and opposition abortions, promoting “traditional” family values and opposing the LGBTQ+, and trying to push their values into education. They also have a kind of puritanical skew of trying to censor media and making the culture less secular. The public sees Christianity as that old conservative religious nut that’s stuck in a bubble of bygone traditions. It’s not a good look.

There’s another weird ideological framework brewing in America among the Christian right [Donald Trump, January 6, Marjorie Taylor Greene]: Christian nationalism. Christian nationalism merges Christianity with national identity, asserting that a nation should be defined by Christian values and that its government should promote those values in laws, policies, and public life. It often implies that Christianity should have a privileged role in shaping the nation’s culture, institutions, and policies. The Christian Right uses Christian Nationalist rhetoric to motivate voters and justify policies by invoking religious heritage and divine purpose. And it’s no surprise it’s making a comeback these days with society becoming more secular and the church losing its power of people. They mobilized voters for conservative political candidates through evangelical churches and advocacy groups, and they’re trying to gain more power. This is starting to sound f-f-f-fascist.

What’s the relationship between fascism and Christian nationalism? Although Christian nationalism and fascism are distinct ideologies, they share authoritarian, exclusionary, and ultranationalist traits.  Recent Christian nationalist movements in the U.S. share authoritarian, nationalistic, and exclusionary rhetoric similar to historical fascist movements. The calls to merge church and state, enforce biblical laws, and view certain demographics as threats echo fascist principles. Fascist regimes historically used religious institutions when it suited their goals, while Christian nationalism seeks to place Christianity at the core of national identity and governance. When Christian nationalist movements adopt authoritarian policies or suppress dissent under the guise of “defending” religious values, they risk moving toward a fascist-like structure, blending religious zeal with political power. Back to the good old days of the medieval times.

Is Christianity committed to conservative positions? Is Christian doctrine inherently bigoted?  No. These views on abortion, gay rights, and purity are based on narrow readings of the bible and these political views have been largely developed by the church and its contrived morality throughout history. We need to look at the cultural influences on biblical interpretation and how this has emerged into a church morality. As a historical text, the Bible is a collection of a lot of different texts with different genres, cultures, histories, and theological perspectives. The biblical canon, as we know it now, didn’t even exist until the fourth century, and a bunch of important people landed on 27 books (pulled out of their historical contexts) and lumped it together to make the new testament (and a bunch of other stuff, the apocryphal books, didn’t make the cut). The complexity increases when theologians and church councils try to extract ethical lessons from it. Obviously there’s going to be a bias towards interpreting texts that correspond to their particular cultural norms and self-interests. 

For example, homosexuality is condemned by a literal reading of Leviticus [insert passages]. But are Christians supposed to be extracting literal ethics from this text that reflects ancient cultural norms, or are they rather supposed to see the context of the literature and find the nuanced principles? Leviticus reflects the legal, moral, and ritual concerns of the ancient Israelites, living in a tribal, agricultural society. Understanding its cultural background helps explain its focus on purity, temple worship, and ancient justice. These laws aimed to distinguish Israel from neighboring pagan cultures by setting strict moral and ritual standards. The lesson isn’t literal, it’s symbolic and allegorical. Purity laws symbolically represent spiritual cleanliness and not just empty physical practices. Leviticus is about God’s covenant with Israel, highlighting the responsibilities of the people in maintaining that relationship through obedience and ritual observance. Look at the spiritual principles behind the rituals, like reverence for the sacred, respect for life, and community justice. Use Leviticus to reflect on ethics, social responsibility, and the meaning of sacred living in a secular world.

We do this all the time for other pieces of literature. For example, take the story of Icarus. Before he was a super smash bros character, he was in a classic Greek myth: Icarus’s father gave him a pair of wings to fly around, but his father said not to fly too close to the sun; of course he does, the wax in the wings melt, and he falls into the sea. Do we read this text literally and extract the rule that “if given a pair of wings, we should not fly too close to the sun”? Or is it a fiction based on the historical context and contains a nuanced principle warning against hubris and the consequences of overreaching without listening to wise counsel.

Other conservative Christian commitments are just a product of historical contingency in the church. The Bible does not explicitly mention abortion, and Christian interpretations have varied historically. The idea of “sexual purity” developed within church tradition, influenced by Greco-Roman ethics and medieval church teachings on sin and virtue. While Christian institutions have historically been associated with bigotry (e.g., racism, colonialism, sexism), they originate from political power struggles and institutional corruption, and nothing in Christian doctrine supports this and likely condemns it. Christian communities have historically driven social reform, including civil rights movements, poverty alleviation, and refugee advocacy.

You might ask: isn’t your interpretation of a more liberal Christianity also just an interpretation, and isn’t it possible that “true” Christianity is really bigoted and you’re just creating a new sect of liberal Christianity? A “new” Christianity like “new” atheism? Maybe, but I’m not doing anything new and just echoing old ideas here. This area of scholarship is called hermeneutics or the theory and methodology of interpretation (or exegesis) of text. Just like any historical text, there are better and worse ways of interpreting them, and what scholars do is argue that this way is better than another. That’s what we’re doing here. The reason most people don’t know about these more nuanced and sophisticated ways of looking at Christianity is that it isn’t what we see around us. Conservative Christians might point to me as a heretic that’s spouting false teachings, that I’m going to hell, and that their approach to Christianity is the right one. But I can only follow what I think is the most true and argue that this interpretive approach to the Bible comes closest to “true” Christianity. I’m probably missing a lot of nuance here, but it’s a YouTube video and there’s only so much theology research I can bare to do sober.

It might be useful to draw an analogy between interpreting the Bible and interpreting, say, the US constitution. One dominant camp of interpreting the constitution, called “originalists”, asserts that the meaning of the U.S. Constitution should be understood based on the intent of its authors or the original public meaning at the time it was written. Like literal interpretations of the bible, we’re supposed to understand the text as a fixed and timeless piece through the lens of the original writer. But even originalists today, while holding onto originalists principles, concede to the development of new precedents or cases that apply the law in different ways; on the other hand, literalists of the bible ignore theological developments and hold that the words are unchanging and divinely inspired. I take this to be an untenable way of reading the Bible. You’re going to end up with absurd literal readings of things, like the world being created in literally seven days, that conflicts with basic understandings of the natural world and scientific progress. You’re also going to be committed to literal pieces of archaic morality that’s situated in an ancient time when survival was difficult, women were property, and civil rights were unheard of.

In Canada, our approach to interpreting the constitution is what’s known as living tree constitutionalism. Surprise, we have a constitution; a lot of Canadians don’t know that we have a constitution from 1867. Living tree constitutionalism is a separate camp from originalist interpretations, and it approaches the constitution as a dynamic and evolving document that must be interpreted in light of contemporary societal values. Like a “living tree”, it can grow and expand gradually. I think this is the right approach to reading the Bible. The core doctrine, or the trunk of the tree, remains in place, but the branches and leaves can grow and change with the times. Obviously, we need some boundary for the core Christian doctrine, and some conservative sentiment of preserving tradition is probably right when it comes to like Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses. Although I like their short sleeve dress shirt look.

But the problem with modern Christianity comes from the peripheral debates on political issues that have somehow become central in the church. Christianity needs to separate from politics and Christians need to distance themselves from the Christian right or conservatives. If it wants to engage with the people and make society better, start by focusing on the marginalized like Jesus did. That happens to be the people the Christian Right don’t like right now: the poor, the refugees, the minorities, or the LGBTQ+. What happened to Christians today? What’s wrong with Christians? Why are they like this?

Well, let’s go straight to the source. What’s making Christians? The institution of Christianity. The church. I think Christianity’s bad PR problem begins and ends with the church. Churches have lost their focus, scope, and original purpose. Churches aren’t meant to dive into political issues, nor are they supposed to do all the thinking for Christians for them, nor are they supposed to police a morality to follow. Churches are supposed to guide people to truly follow Jesus. Churches have failed Christians.

And I’m not even talking the obviously bad ones, like the mega churches with millionaire pastors or the ones with sexual scandals. I’m talking about your average church. They led them astray with a focus on a weird church morality instead of focusing on the core teachings of Christianity. Again, church morality is not Christian morality; rather, they’re a weird parasitic mutant of Christian morality. It’s another remnant of medieval churches. There’s a weird hierarchy and power dynamic, and subtle rules and repressions that have continued throughout generations. Like you’re not supposed to swear or have premarital sex, but why are those things put front and center while ignoring things like helping the homeless, victims of sexual abuse, or advocating for the rights of the marginalized? Is it a coincidence that restrictions on foul language has also been emphasized by the morality of the upper class? Or that virginity was historically linked to patriarchal property rights? We saw a history of people coopting church morality for their own agenda.

The church is carrying on historical blunders and not learning from their mistakes. The overemphasis on church morality leads to arrogant, hypocritical, preachy Christians. They’re sheltered from engaging in any real social issues and are fed conservative church ethics. The focus on proselytizing while being sheltered from the rest of society leads to invasive and insensitive and out of touch Christians. The church needs to update its approach to doctrine. I’m seriously not sure how this can be done and what it takes to change a lot of people’s minds. It’s like trying to get somebody who is politically far right to become politically far left.

Maybe education? Start by educating the people in power at the churches and hope it trickles down? There’s certainly a lot of good scholarship out there and information is readily accessible more than ever. But there might be too much information and it’s not the job of pastors or church leaders to be scholars. There’s also the risk that they take the bits and pieces of scholarship, misconstrue it, and use it to reaffirm their established beliefs. It’s common for people not to change their views, and church leaders might see their obtuse commitments to their theological beliefs to be a virtue and fail to ever consider different points of view. They present facile accounts of other religions, ignore the complexities of social issues, and have no nuance when it comes to challenging problems. But it’s not their fault. Partly because of their job and partly because of the dogmatic church morality, they are insulated from much of the secular world and only experience a small slice of it. Maybe it’s not their job to engage with the various issues in the modern world and have a complete answer in a single hour sermon or to radically change the institution of the church and its moral commitments that have survived generations. Maybe more direct education is the answer.

The critique of the church, church goers, and their moral failings is nothing new. We saw Martin Luther and his 95 theses, but there have been several others: Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) critiqued certain church practices and advocated reason alongside faith. Blaise Pascal (1623–1662) criticized religious hypocrisy within the church while defending Christianity through works like Pensées, emphasizing the limits of reason and the necessity of faith. John Locke (1632–1704) criticized religious intolerance and advocated for the separation of church and state in A Letter Concerning Toleration. Paul Tillich (1886–1965) critiqued traditional religious dogma while seeking to reinterpret Christianity through existential and philosophical frameworks in works like The Courage to Be. Reinhold Niebuhr (1892–1971) criticized both religious idealism and secular liberalism, arguing for a Christian realism that recognizes human sinfulness in politics and society.

But my personal favorite is by a guy named Soren Kierkegaard, a Danish philosopher that lived from 1813-1855. Kierkegaard argued that the institutional church turned Christianity into a bureaucratic system where rituals and dogma replaced authentic faith. In Attack Upon Christendom, he criticized the Danish Lutheran Church for being too entangled with the state and serving societal respectability rather than spiritual transformation. He viewed the clergy as being more concerned with power, social status, and maintaining political control than with guiding people toward experiencing authentic Christianity. He described them as “officials” rather than spiritual leaders, and he accused them of reducing Christianity to a set of rules and moralistic preaching. He argued that church leaders promoted a “Christianity without Christ” and reduced the radical message of Jesus to a set of moral platitudes and political alliances. Kierkegaard emphasized that Jesus Christ was a radical figure who opposed social privilege and hypocrisy. You can see why I like this guy so much. He should have made this video.

Modern Christianity and the church is still the way Kierkegaard describes the churches of his day. It’s become a social club with a touch of spirituality mixed in. People like being a part of crowds and something bigger than themselves. At least that’s what they told me at the AA meetings–it’s sacrament wine, how bad could it be? I’m not going to go into the psychology of the church and religion here; many other people much smarter than me have written so much on that topic. But I worry about how many people these days that call themselves “Christian” are being deluded into a “false” Christianity.

Kierkegaard criticized churches for making Christianity easy and comfortable. He believed that individual faith was at the core of Christianity and that salvation could not be mediated by the church or through external rites. He believed that the church presented faith as a routine, reducing it to weekly attendance, passive acceptance of doctrines, and church membership. He opposed the notion that being “Christian” was merely about cultural identity or following a set of norms. He argued that true Christianity required an existential leap of faith which is like an intense personal commitment to God.

True Christianity, for Kierkegaard, is not about belonging to a church, rather it’s a personal and existential commitment to Christ. True Christianity, requires struggle, risk, and commitment, and it’s characterized by personal suffering, self-denial, and individual responsibility before God. He considered reliance on the church as a way people avoided confronting their spiritual struggles, thus deepening their existential despair. He emphasized the “leap of faith”, where an individual must confront existential despair and make a personal, unconditional commitment to God (beyond rational understanding; Kierkegaard’s philosophy of religion is complicated). Kierkegaard stressed that authentic Christianity is a difficult path requiring radical obedience to God. Apparently about 2.5 billion people around the world call themselves “Christian”, but how many of them are the type of Christian as Kierkegaard describes?

There’s a type of person who calls them Christian that aren’t “really” Christians in this sense, especially from the way they behave. Obviously we can’t know their internal states or what personal issues they struggle with, but I think there’s an intuitive understanding. If I protest and throw slurs at a gay soldier’s funeral and claim I’m a Christian, that seems so far removed from what Jesus would do that you probably wouldn’t call them Christian. That’s one extreme example as an illustration. But there’s another type of Christian that Kierkegaard suggests also aren’t “really” Christian, and there seem to be a lot more of them.

CS Lewis calls them “lukewarm” Christians. You might call them the “Sunday” or “causal” Christian. If Kierkegaard is right, then these people likely aren’t true Christians either because they behave in a way that doesn’t reflect an absolute unconditional commitment to God. They follow the rites and rituals of Christianity, they go through the motions of being a church goer, maybe they’re even better people for following the moral example of Jesus, but they haven’t made the radical leap to fully commit themselves to God. CS Lewis seems to agree with Kierkegaard that true Christianity is all-or-nothing. He writes, “Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important.” Either Christianity it true, there is a God, and your entire world and way of seeing everything is turned upside down because of it, or it’s not true and who cares about some fake religion. I wouldn’t waste my time with Christianity if it wasn’t true. 

But I do think it’s true. And it structures my entire being and gives me a happiness and fulfillment that I can’t explain. And I want other people to have that. But it can’t be done by shoving religion down people’s throats. And people are so off-put by the current state of Christianity that they wont even consider it. Christianity needs to earn trust with the rest of the world.

Stupid Christians and Stupid Atheists

· Leave a comment ·

Let me get on my high horse for a second. Modern Christianity in the US is kind of dumb. There’s a small group of academics and scholars saying smart stuff, but the average Christian is probably dumber than the average non-Christian. But, in its defense, most people these days are kind of dumb and there just are a lot of Christians. Think about how smart the average person is, and about half the people are dumber than that. Of course, how smart you are is a product of privilege, education, and being lucky enough to be afforded the time to develop your intellectual capacities. But a lot of people are dumb because they’re lazy. Yet they think they’re morally superior to you. And they’re also not very nice. A lot of these dumb, lazy, self-righteous mean people call themselves Christian. And they make up the institutions of religion, the public perception, and political values that are the face of this warped, mutated leviathan that we call modern Christianity.

Is this whole “self-hating” Christian bit getting old? To be clear, I don’t hate Christianity, I hate Christians and what they’ve done to Christianity. Maybe I’m too conservative for the “so-called” conservative Christians these days. You want to go back to the “good old days”? Me too, let’s go back to the Christian values of the year 30.

You might say that what I’m calling “modern Christianity” is a bit of a strawman or the intellectually weakest version of Christianity. It’s true that there are scholars that have really sophisticated arguments for theism, the metaphysics of God and the universe, or the historical Jesus. But that’s not the Christianity that the two and a half billion people around the world subscribe to. Those abortion protestors aren’t citing Judith Jarvis Thomson; they were told by the church that people are killing babies and they need to go out and stop this evil through showing aborted babies. Personally, it makes me support abortion even more if there’s a chance a baby will end up like those protestors.

It’s the same thing with the average conservative; they aren’t the strongest intellectual representation of conservatives, like the sophisticated political and legal scholars. If you actually read the conservative academic literature or the decisions by conservative supreme court justices, you’ll slippery clever conservative nerd. You side with the racist, gun-toting, red necks, but you sure are the best of them. Anyway, “modern Christianity” is the label I give to popular Christianity or what your average Christian believes. Clearly not the best intellectual representation of Christianity, but from an empirical socio-anthropological perspective, this version of modern Christianity is unfortunately what represents the religion of Christianity today.

Part of the difficulty with the terms here is that religion is hard to define. It’s typically defined as a set of beliefs and practices centered around concepts of the sacred or divine, but how do we fix these beliefs and practices for a particular religion when there’s so much variation within the religion? Is it by what’s widely held? Is it the strongest forms of intellectual argument? Do we make subcategories? There are probably 2-5 major branches in Christianity, but around 50 thousand denominations disagreeing on minor beliefs and practices (again, depending on how we define denominations). The approach I take here when I say “modern” Christianity is just by majority. What do most people in America who call themselves Christian believe and do?

Modern Christianity in the US is an easy targets for edgy internet atheists. “New” atheism gained popularity around 2006 and onward when a bunch of anti-Christian books came out by the “four horseman” of new atheism: Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and Daniel Dennett. They’re anti-Christian or anti-religious in the sense that they see most religions as an overall bad thing. Historically speaking, they have a pretty good point: religious institutions have been a source of violence, intolerance, and dogmatic thinking. But I, along with many others, think their philosophical arguments are really bad. But I totally see where the hostility towards religion is coming from.
 

A lot of people, especially a lot of young people with internet access, grew up with religion, were dragged to church on Sunday mornings, and had a lot of questions you weren’t supposed to ask in the church. What’s the relationship between science and faith? Why does the bible seem so misogynistic, homophobic, or generally archaic? Why is the church telling me I’ll go to hell if I touch myself? There’s a bunch of adults yelling at you and scaring you about hell. People feel betrayed church. Once they leave the church, they feel like they’ve been lied to their entire lives and spent all this time and effort believing in something that wasn’t true. People feel hurt by the church. Having their sexuality repressed, being scolded into a puritan morality, or being forced to stagnate intellectually. I get it, it feels like speaking truth to power because you have this large institution with an evil history, an ancient text that doesn’t make sense, and people with very superficial beliefs at a strict social club that think they’re better than you. This is sounding very colonial and, yes, the church was behind that too. Let’s manifest our destiny, besties. Sorry.

Then you see on the news, and maybe even in your neighborhood, people like the Westboro Baptist church hurling homophobic slurs and claiming to do so as Christians. You see fundamentalists claiming the Bible is a literal textbook and that the universe was made in seven days, evolution is fake, and that science in devil talk. In some places in America, this is all around you and you feel like you’re trapped in a cult. The church, in its best light, can be a source of social cohesion, a positive moral force, and provide people with meaning. In its worse light, it can damage people psychologically, it can make people more bigoted, and it can stunt their intellectual growth.

I think this is why new atheism resonated with so many people. With the rise of the internet, it provided a community for people to share in the hurt and betrayal, like a support group. The four horseman seem like the smart and sophisticated people, and of course you want to be associated with their side rather than the idiots who still believe in fairytales. There’s a satisfaction or feeling of justice in watching the “religious dummy gets owned by facts and logic” compilation. You want to distance yourself as far away from the oppressive religion you grew up with and new atheism is the new identity you can cling to. It’s especially significant for teens and young adults who are still in the process of forming their sense of identity, developing intellectually (maybe for the first time in a critical academic setting like college), and leaving the safety bubble of their parents to see how diverse and vast the world really is.

Atheism is generally on the rise globally and there’s a lot of factors separate from new atheism that are causing this: more education, more individualism and autonomy, and cultural shifts to secular liberal ideologies. New atheism definitely had its impact on millions on people in the 2000s, but now it’s largely died down. But there are still active communities and people who subscribe the to new atheists’ approach to religion. There are a lot of problems with new atheism that led to its weakened influence.

First, their odd hostility and obsession with being anti-religious was cringey to a lot of people, including other atheists. The fedora wearing neckbeard that starts a debate when somebody says “bless you” or ridicules the notion of an afterlife to people who just lost a loved one is just in too poor taste. Even the four horseman seem Islamophobic, culturally insensitive, and just too fixated on the bad parts of religion. There was an ironic dogmatisms forming in new atheist circles where they would be militantly anti-religious and completely dismissive of anything that had to do with religion. And it’s kind of weird to base your entire personality on being anti-religious.

Second, their philosophical arguments are really bad, especially Dawkins and Harris. Obviously I can’t break them down here and others have done a much better job, but the summary is that they don’t really engage in rigorous, academic philosophy of religion and you sort of need to do that if you’re going to make certain philosophical claims or claim to dismiss arguments. Dawkins, he’s a legendary evolutionary biologist and I love his work in this field, but he’s a horrible philosopher–and it makes sense because he’s not a philosopher. Harris also doesn’t really engage with theology or philosophy of religion, and oddly also doesn’t engage with the relevant philosophical scholarship that’s like completely secular, like in morality or philosophy of mind. He also looks like Ben Stiller and I just find him to be the most boring horseman.


Hitchens and Dennett are a bit better (RIP), but they seem to have a different mission. Dennett was my favorite because he was actually a brilliant philosopher of mind and philosopher of science. He doesn’t really engage with philosophy of religion on like whether God exists or not, rather he’s in this camp of people that dismiss religion as a social or psychological phenomenon. Specifically, he looks for the evolutionary roots of religious beliefs and how they emerge as having some survival function. This camp of people don’t really take religious arguments seriously in the first place and they’re more interested in why religion exists at all. Same with Freud who viewed religion as a psychological crutch and belief in god originated from father figure projection. Or Marx who viewed religion as a political tool for coping with social oppressions and economic hardship. Or Nietzsche who viewed religion as a moral tool arising out of  weakness. Or Durkheim who viewed religion as a kind of social glue. All these people don’t care to debate the truth of religion and just dismiss it.

Hitchens was more focused on the social and political harms caused by organized religion throughout history. He was also a really good public speaker and a snarky British guy, like a smarter Ricky Gervais. We already went through all the horrific stuff the Christian church did, so trust me when I say the other popular religions also have a pretty bad history. But it’s a bit of a stretch to say we should get rid of religions altogether because it’s overall a force of bad. People often try to point to all the good that religion did as well, but I’m not sure if it outweighs all the bad it did. So I might agree with Hitchens here in that if we’re doing some utilitarian calculus of all the good vs bad that religion brought into the world, the bad would outweigh the good. But we live in a liberal democracy that affords the freedom of religion. It’s a fundamental right that’s not really appropriate for an utilitarian calculus (or if you had to do it, then the good of having this right probably out weighs all the bad of not having it). Most people, even if they’re not religious, are in support of religious freedom and expression; and, most religious people are in support of a separation of church and state.

I think what’s most important lesson is that the horrific things that religion has done–the terrible people who claim that they’re Christian and claim to be doing the Lord’s work–all these things are irrelevant to the question of whether Christianity is true or not. Just like there are stupid Christians who believe the earth was create in 7 days, there are stupid scientists–PhDs who are anti-vaxxers or think the earth is flat–does that mean all of science is stupid? No, the opinions of a few representative people don’t discount what they represent. I think we all know that bad representatives of a religion–whether it’s a single person, a Westboro Baptist Church, or an entire theocratic institution–doesn’t reflect on the religion. Even if every Christian in the world was a morally perfect force for good and each had PhDs, it still wouldn’t make Christianity any more true or false. The truth or falsity of a claim like, “God exists”, is true or false regardless of whether Christians or the church do bad things or claim some weird things as gospel.

Third reason why new atheism isn’t as popular anymore is that people moved on and people stopped caring. There’s more to life than debating religion with people on the internet, and at a certain point you don’t bother trying to change people’s beliefs. For one, people rarely change their beliefs, and, another, is that it takes so much effort to change people’s beliefs; and, finally, you learn that, outside of the internet, normal people don’t really care if you’re an atheist or what you believe in. You don’t win friends talking about Bertrand Russell or the cosmological argument.

There’s an apathy or ennui with all things religious. Maybe it has to do with postmodern values. Maybe we’re all just jaded from all the institutions, politics, denominations, religions, and there’s an informational overload. They all seem to be doing something spiritual or something, maybe they all probably are the same and all truths lead to the same place or something. Why would I engage with all this stress and complexity? My life is fine without more work into apologetics, biblical scholarship, or brain hurting philosophy. I’m barely surviving a full work day, so I really don’t have it in me to add another problem in my life. If it makes you happy, sure, I’m open to the existence of God; but I don’t know, I’m an agnostic, or an apathetic agnostic.

But there’s some need for spirituality these days… There’s a functional argument for religion like many secular scholars suggest, but it has nothing to do with truth or meaning. It has to do with making your life easier. And whatever meaning based things seems to always end up kind of cult like. It’s serving cult.

But I agree with the neckbeards on the point that whether Christianity is true or not is a question worth asking and investigating. As a Christian, I think it’s the single most important question, but I’m not here to proselytize. What I’m here to do here is to argue that people have not seriously considered whether Christian is true or not because people don’t know what Christianity really is. You’ve been fed what Christianity is as an institutional religion. You’ve been fed Christian nationalism, puritanical church values, and a corrupted version of so-called modern Christianity. It’s what I’m calling groups like evangelicals or Roman Catholics in the U.S., and I’m lumping in a lot of people together for simplicity. The institution of the church, the people, or “modern” popular forms of Christianity, I am arguing, is not really Christianity. True Christianity follows Jesus Christ and “modern” Christianity is so inconsistent with the life and teachings of Jesus Christ that it can’t possibly reflect the “Christianity”, the “little or follower of Christ” that emerged around 30AD.

Are you just making a new sect and claiming this is what “true” Christianity is? I’m not trying to define doctrine or solve theological problems. I’m returning to what CS Lewis calls “mere” Christianity. The bare bones of what Christianity is and the minimal things you need to believe and behave like to be a Christian. To follow and be like Jesus.

Why should you care about finding the “true” Christianity and weeding through the bad PR of modern Christianity? Who cares? I know who I am, my life is fine, and my schedule can’t fit an abstruse philosophical exploration into the truth of religion. Totally fair, but here I want to suggest something like Pascal’s wager, because I love gambling: [matrix]

You take the red pill: you try to investigate what “true” Christianity is. First scenario, you find out it’s a lie and worst case scenario is that you wasted some time learning about the true depths of one of the world’s most influential religions; you go on with your life a bit more educated, but we’re all going to die anyway. Second scenario, you find out true Christianity is pretty legit. Your whole view on the universe is turned upside down by the notion of a personal God existing, forming a relationship with this God through this historical figure named Jesus Christ, and having eternal life and meaning pursuing this truth.

You take the blue pill: you don’t investigate what “true” Christianity is. You go on with your life and what you think Christianity is through the lens of “modern” Christians or critiques of them, and trust that these secondhand accounts is all there is to this religion call Christianity. If Christianity does turn out to be true, you missed the boat because you couldn’t be bothered. You stay in your bubble of undeveloped philosophical views of the universe, meaning in life, and everything else through bits and pieces of media that you consume. The popular post modern view is that we’re all going to die anyway, life is meaningless so make up some meaning for your life to kill time, and try to have a good time with other people.

I’m wording it in a very leading and bias way because the matrix would have been really boring if Neo took the blue pill. I know, we’re all busy, and your schedule can’t fit in an inquiry into a radical existential transformation. But please consider this route before going into some weird hippy spirituality self-help journey or telling the universe positive affirmations or, worse, astrology (ugh, red flag).

If you’re a Christian and still watching… are you mad at me? Listen, I can’t say anything about the relationship between you and God. But you have to be careful about conflating church morality with Christian morality; they are not the same and you need to do the work in finding out how to follow the teachings of Jesus and the ethical values that flow out of it. You call yourself Christian, but that’s not enough; you also need to find out what “true” Christianity and be better at exemplifying Jesus to the world. 

People don’t trust Christians to be like Jesus anymore. There are too many historical failures, there are too many bad representatives, there are too many bad relationships the church, and people get on guard if they hear you’re Christian like you’re Ned Flanders. Christianity has a PR problem.

The History of the Christian Right

· Leave a comment ·

Christianity started as a cool club where some outsider thought it was an incestuous sex cult (the communal meals were thought to be orgies and “brother”/”sister” language was thought to be incestuous) that practiced cannibalism (eucharist) and witchcraft (miracles, healings, and rejecting mainstream pagan religions). They really were political rebels and social justice warriors though. Anyway, somewhere along the way they became a lot more like your conservative uncle Sam.

Let’s look at the brief history. Look, I know history class sucked, and my therapist says I need to stop dwelling on the past, but Christianity is like two thousand years and a lot of stuff has happened since then.

Christianity began as a small Jewish sect that centered around the teachings of Jesus. His followers claimed he was the Messiah prophesied in Jewish scriptures and that he was the Son of God and that he did miracles and a bunch of other stuff — go look it up, it’s a pretty big deal now. Anyway, the Jews–I’m saying that as a technical historical term–and Romans weren’t happy about these Jesus freaks.

The Roman empire worshipped and was tolerant of multiple gods, but they blended religion with politics and wanted conquered people to participate in the imperial cult as a sign of loyalty which sometimes worshipped emperors as divine figures. What cool people: Ladies, ask your boyfriend how often they think about the Roman empire… then break up with him for it not being enough (up your standards, ladies). Christians, along with other Jews during that time, who refused to participate and show loyalty to Rome were sometimes persecuted by Rome. The Romans didn’t care which god or gods you worshipped–especially since there were so many different ones from conquering different people–as long as you showed loyalty to Rome by participating in their rituals and worshipping their authority figures. I know Rome is starting to sound like modern day America, and maybe we’re in for a similar fall of civilization soon–which, on the plus side, means you don’t have to go to work tomorrow.

On the Jewish side, although Christianity arose as a Jewish sect that was a part of the Jewish community, the Jewish leaders of the time rejected the Christian claim that Jesus was the Messiah. Jesus didn’t fulfill the traditional Messianic expectations like restoring Israel’s political independence or establishing God’s eternal kingdom on Earth. Jesus and other early Christians preached new interpretations of Jewish scripture (now, the Old Testament), and this led to more tensions with the Jewish religious system. The Jewish leaders believed these Christ followers were misinterpreting Jewish scripture, rebelling from Jewish order, and stealing Jewish followers with this misinformation. This led Jewish communities to distance themselves from this new sect that followed Christ. It’s like what Christians today do to Mormons or Jehovah’s witnesses.

But both traditional Jews and Christ followers were still just trying to survive under Roman rule and both were being persecuted by Romans for not following the Roman imperial cult. The Jewish diaspora and its relationship to early Christianity was complex and varied by regions, but some Jewish communities would report Christians to Roman officials, like Omar in The Wire working with the cops. But despite the common idea that Jewish people persecuted Christians, the Jewish community wasn’t in a position of absolute power to have a systematic organized persecution of Christians. It was more like throwing shade and jumping them if they came on their turf.

Anyway, after Jesus was crucified, it was cool to be Christian at this time. Super edgy, super underground. This all changed with a guy named Constantine the Great (I love titles, but they’d probably call me Daniel the Mediocre or Daniel the Anxious and Forgettable). Constantine was an emperor of the Roman Empire and was feuding with another emperor Maxentius, and they fought it out in 312AD in the Battle of the Milvian Bridge. The night before the battle, Constantine saw the first two letters of Christ in Greek and was told the words “in this sign, you will conquer”. Maxentius was reading The Secret and putting positive vibes out into the world that he’ll win. Anyway, Constantine won this battle and attributed his victory to Christianity and became the undisputed ruler of the Western Roman empire.

Before Constantine’s reign, Christianity was still being persecuted in the Roman empire, especially during the reigns of Nero, Decius, and Diocletian. The Great Persecution (303-311 AD) under Diocletian was particularly severe, targeting Christian leaders, confiscating religious texts, and forcing Christians to sacrifice to Roman gods. Christianity then was like critical race theory now: people don’t really understand it, people who do understand it think “what’s the big deal”, and politicians want it to go away. But the Christian population was growing, and Constantine came into power and wanted to aligned himself with this population. So Constantine, along with co-emperor Licinius (who ruled the eastern portion), issued the Edict of Milan, which legalized Christianity and allowed religious freedom in the Roman Empire.

Christianity in the Roman empire grew significantly, but it was divided by theological disputes, especially concerning the nature of Jesus Christ’s divinity. Was Jesus God? Was he just a human? [what if god was one of us] The primary controversy involved Arianism (not Aryanism!), a doctrine promoted by Arius, a priest from Alexandria. He argued that Jesus Christ was created by God the Father and therefore not co-eternal or equal in divinity. This belief clashed with the traditional Christian view that Jesus was fully divine and eternally one with God. The dispute threatened church unity, so Constantine (a recent convert and played by Keanu Reeves) intervened.

So he put together a committee, or council–I don’t know what the difference is. Anyway, this PTA meeting, or the “Council of Nicaea” declared Arius heretical and affirmed that Jesus Christ is “of the same substance” (homoousios) as God the Father. The council also produced the Nicene Creed, a formal statement of Christian belief that outlined the divine nature of Jesus Christ and His relationship with God the Father. They also established a uniform date for the celebration of Easter, separating it from the Jewish Passover. And some other administrative stuff for church governance and dispute resolution. But the big deal here was the Nicene Creed, which became the basis for Christian orthodoxy and remains a central statement of faith in many Christian denominations. And this council was a big deal because it involved the Roman emperor in church matters: the council solidified the alliance between the church and the Roman state, a relationship that shaped medieval European history in really weird ways (and this shaped the rest of history). Church and state: super toxic couple.

The fall of the Roman empire (476 AD) is usually how historians mark the beginning of the Middle Ages in Europe. Europe was super disorganized but the Catholic Church, with all its administrative framework centered in Rome, became the daddy figure telling everyone to clean their rooms [Jordan Peterson]. The Bishop of Rome, or the Pope, gradually gained influence as both a spiritual and political leader. During this time, the church was viewed as the ultimate source of spiritual authority, representing God’s will on Earth. By receiving coronation and blessings from the Pope or bishops, political rulers could claim their authority was God-given. What strange medieval rhetoric right?

This idea of getting the church’s blessing became institutionalized as the “Divine Right of Kings,” which said that monarchs ruled by divine approval and were accountable only to God. Very authoritarian, very dom. The social structure was also based on the church’s endorsement of the feudal system; surprise, they also said this was divinely ordained. Lords, vassals, and serfs were expected to accept their positions as part of God’s plan. Started form the bottom, and you need to stay there because that’s God’s plan. It was a miserable time, unless you were rich man. [Again, like the good old USA. Woooo, history repeats itself…] And the church reinforced patriarchal structures, placing men at the top of the social and familial hierarchy.

The church had a lot of social power, but it lacked military power, so they relied on political rulers for protection against invasions, particularly from Vikings, Muslims, and Magyars. In return for religious legitimacy, rulers gifted vast amounts of land to the church and made the church one of the largest landholders in Europe. The church got even richer by legally mandating tithes (a 10% tax on income) from the population. The kings also allowed church officials to serve as judges and advisors, merging secular and canon law. The church got super powerful: at around 800AD, Pope Leo III crowned Charlemagne which meant that popes legitimized emperors and that papal authority was superior to secular power. Not technically a theocracy, but pretty damn close.

Kings and emperors frequently led Crusades (1096-1291) sanctioned by the Pope, which were a series of religiously sanctioned military campaigns aimed at reclaiming the Holy Land from Muslim rule. It was framed as a holy mission, but they massacred Jews, Muslims, and even some Christians. Entire populations were slaughtered and the people doing the slaughtering were promised spiritual rewards. This religious extremism wasn’t only rampant, it was the dominant social power. Heretics were tortured and executed; there were a number of “inquisitions”, where the church established formal inquisitorial tribunals to investigate, try, and punish individuals suspected of heresy. Witch hunts, suppression of science, (they persecuted Galileo for heliocentrism), abuse of power in the church, anti-Semitism anti-Semitism, abuse, and financial corruption in the church.

Everything changed when… [the fire nation attacked] Martin Luther published the 95 Theses in 1517, criticizing Church practices, which legend says he nailed to the door of a church like some passive aggressive roommate. The Protestant Reformation emerged as a reaction to perceived corruption and doctrinal abuses within the Catholic Church, including: indulgences (sale of forgiveness for sins), clerical corruption (priests and bishops were criticized for immorality and greed), and lack of scriptural access (the Bible was in Latin). He advocated justification by faith alone (sola fide) and scripture alone (sola scriptura). Luther denounced the corruption and greed within the Church hierarchy and questioned the Pope’s authority to forgive sins. Luther’s ideas spread rapidly due to the printing press, making his writings widely accessible across Europe. He pissed off a lot of people who benefited from religion, like those megachurch pastors today, but he made Christianity cool again. While in hiding at Wartburg Castle, Luther translated the New Testament into German, making Scripture accessible to ordinary people.

Another big play in the Protestant Reformation [against those filthy Catholics] was John Calvin (1509–1564). He developed Calvinism, which is sort of weird now. It emphasized predestination (the belief that God determines salvation) and strict moral discipline. Calvin created a Presbyterian system of church governance involving elders (presbyters) and pastors, emphasizing collective leadership rather than a single powerful bishop or pope. Calvin refined and systematized Protestant theology, making it intellectually rigorous and institutionally sustainable. But he contributed to the weird stuff in churches today. He established a religiously governed state in Geneva which influenced later Puritan movements. Geneva’s Consistory enforced moral discipline by punishing fun stuff, like swearing, gambling, and drunkenness. His emphasis on hard work, discipline, and stewardship influenced the development of capitalist economies, especially in Protestant-majority countries. Ever heard of the Protestant work ethic? You have this guy to thank.

The Reformation weakened the Church’s political power, leading to the eventual separation of religious and secular authority. We then move to the Enlightenment, an intellectual movement that emerged in the 17th and 18th centuries, emphasizing reason, science, individual liberty, and secular governance. Many philosophers argued that government should be free from religious influence, and they supported crazy ideas of human rights, equality, and personal liberties. Intellectuals questioned monarchies, feudal hierarchies, and religious orthodoxy. They valued reason, empirical evidence, and scientific inquiry over religious dogma, and it further undermined the traditional approaches of the church.

Coffee had an interesting role here. Before coffee’s arrival in Europe, beer and wine were common drinks, even during the day because clean drinking water wasn’t readily available. Caffeine, a stimulant, promoted long discussions and enabled more intense intellectual work compared to the drowsy effects of alcohol. Coffeehouses were often called “penny universities” because entry cost only a penny, yet patrons could engage in scholarly conversations on philosophy, politics, science, and art. Major European cities like London, Paris, and Vienna became hotspots for intellectual debates due to the rise of coffeehouses. These days, if a stranger approaches me at a café, I’d sooner throw my scalding hot coffee at them than engage them in a debate.

Churches across Europe, especially the Catholic Church, condemned Enlightenment principles as dangerous to religious orthodoxy and social stability. They didn’t want to give up the idea that the pope was right about everything and the church is where you get your education and morality. That’s crazy. One pope was like, “Stay celibate and no mistresses. Except if you’re me. God said it’s fine if I do. I would know, I’m the pope.” [sound like Jim Gaffigan]

Some thinkers defended the church. Edmund Burke, for example, said the church were stabilizing forces and defended feudal ideas of inheritance, property rights, and tradition. He wasn’t big on change. Which makes sense since he’s regarded as the father of modern conservativism and went on to influence Churchill, Raegan, and Thatcher.

Into the 19th century (the 1800s; I always get that confused), Enlightenment ideas and scientific discoveries, such as Darwin’s theory of evolution, weakened the Church’s influence on public life. The Church sought control over education to counter growing secular influences in schools, especially in Protestant communities where Sunday schools educated the working class in both religion and literacy. 

As timed went on, more people moved from rural communities to industrial cities and this disrupted traditional family life. Churches wanted to stop changing the traditional family structure because they thought it was the foundation of a good society. The church wanted to keep the nuclear family of the man as the breadwinners and women as moral guardians of the home. No divorce, contraception, or *cough* alternative family structures. Remember, in the medieval period, the Church’s endorsement of a divinely ordained social order and patriarchal family structures instilled the notion that moral authority came from above—both from God and His earthly representatives. For centuries, these beliefs filtered down into the cultural fabric of many Western societies, and blended with emerging national and cultural identities.

In the 20th century, Christian conservatism grew in response to cultural changes like secularism, feminism, and civil rights movements. Issues like abortion, school prayer, and LGBTQ+ rights became central conservative causes in the 60s. In the 70s, the Religious Right emerged as a politically active coalition of evangelical Protestants, conservative Catholics, and fundamentalist Christians. Their goal was to restore traditional Christian values through political means, especially by influencing U.S. policy through the Republican Party. After Engel v. Vitale (1962), which banned school-led prayer, Christian conservatives campaigned to restore religious activities in public schools. Groups like Focus on the Family and Family Research Council led campaigns to preserve traditional marriage and restrict LGBTQ+ representation in public life. Roe v. Wade (1973), the Supreme Court’s ruling legalizing abortion, had conservative Christians frame abortion as a moral and religious issue, campaigning for its reversal and supporting pro-life candidates. By the 1980 election, Ronald Reagan successfully united economic conservatives with Christian conservatives and secured overwhelming evangelical support. Reagan’s presidency marked the peak of the Religious Right’s influence. For now…

We’re now into the 21st century, but we see a history of the relationship between church and state. How authorities in politics and the church have used Christianity to seize power and resources from the people using a subtle tactic: moral influence. The idea that church morality is God’s word and God’s power, not just the words of some power hungry religious and political demagogue. The church morality instituted social structures, like the nuclear family, that made sure that church morality will be enforced and they’ll stay in power. When the social structures weakened, church morality turned to regain power through politics and conservative ideologies. 

These days, internal divisions, changing cultural values, and declining church attendance has weakened church morality and its power. Younger generations tend to be more socially liberal, and as countries become more interconnected, global activism on issues like human rights, gender equality, and climate change. Church morality is still pervasive among conservative Christians, but it’s lost its grip on the rest of the culture. 

Modern Christianity in the US has gone back to the middle ages. Mega churches going back to prosperity gospels, politicians coopting conservative church morality for power, and church goers that don’t know the first thing about being like Jesus.

The Depth of Praus: Exploring the Virtue of Gentle Strength in Christian Life and Ethics

· Leave a comment ·

In the tapestry of Christian virtues, praus (πραΰς) stands out as a concept that challenges common perceptions of strength and power. Often translated as “meek” or “gentle,” praus embodies a far richer and more nuanced meaning. This Greek term, found in both classical and biblical literature, represents a complex virtue that combines strength, self-control, and a gentle spirit. This essay explores the depths of praus, examining its linguistic roots, biblical and philosophical contexts, theological implications, and practical applications in Christian life and ethics.

I pray for tranquility and meekness. We have to be gentle and surrender to God’s will. We have to stop being so hyperactive and disoriented. We need to slow down. Embrace the peace of the Lord.

Linguistic Analysis and Definitions

To fully grasp the concept of praus, it is essential to delve into its linguistic components and historical usage. The word itself has roots in ancient Greek philosophy and was later adopted and reinterpreted in Christian theology.

Classical Greek Thought

In classical Greek thought, praus was used to describe a balanced character, one that found the mean between excessive anger and excessive angerlessness. Aristotle, in his work on ethics, positioned praus as a virtue of character, emphasizing its role in maintaining emotional equilibrium.

Christian Context

In the New Testament, praus took on additional layers of meaning. It came to represent not just a balanced temperament but a particular kind of strength—one that was powerful yet controlled, assertive yet gentle.

The Strength of Praus

Praus represents strength under control. This concept is often illustrated by the image of a war horse trained for battle. Such a horse is incredibly powerful and capable of great ferocity, yet it is so well-trained that it responds to the slightest touch of its rider’s hand. This analogy captures the essence of praus—it is not the absence of power but the perfect control and direction of that power.

Calm Strength and Self-Control

Another key aspect of praus is the notion of calm strength. This involves maintaining a tranquil spirit and inner peace, even in the face of provocation or challenging circumstances. A person embodying praus is not easily ruffled or provoked to anger. Instead, they possess a steady composure that allows them to respond to situations with wisdom and grace rather than reacting impulsively.

Gentleness in Correction and Teaching

One of the practical manifestations of praus is the ability to correct faults gently. This aspect of the virtue is particularly relevant in leadership, mentorship, and community life. A person characterized by praus can address problems or shortcomings in others without resorting to harshness or fostering resentment. Instead, they approach correction with a spirit of gentleness and genuine concern for the other’s well-being and growth.

Submissiveness to Authority and Acceptance of Circumstances

Praus also encompasses a willingness to submit to legitimate authority, including divine authority. This is not a blind or passive submission but an active choice to align oneself with proper governance and guidance. In the Christian context, this often relates to submitting to God’s will and accepting His sovereignty.

Biblical Context and Usage

In the New Testament, praus appears in several significant contexts, most notably in the teachings of Jesus. Perhaps the most famous instance is in the Beatitudes, where Jesus declares, “Blessed are the meek (praus), for they will inherit the earth” (Matthew 5:5). This statement, radical in its time and still challenging today, elevates praus to a position of supreme importance in Christian ethics.

Jesus’ Example

Another notable use of praus is found in Matthew 11:29, where Jesus describes himself as “gentle (praus) and humble in heart.” This self-description by Jesus provides a powerful model for Christian behavior and character, suggesting that praus is not just a commendable trait but a Christ-like quality.

Apostolic Teachings

In the epistles, praus is listed among the fruits of the Spirit in Galatians 5:23 (often translated as “gentleness”) and is recommended as a way of dealing with others in various contexts (e.g., 1 Peter 3:15, where believers are instructed to give a reason for their hope with “gentleness and respect”).

Theological Implications

The concept of praus has profound theological implications, particularly in understanding the nature of God and the character of Christ. The fact that Jesus describes himself as praus challenges traditional notions of divine power and authority. It presents a God who is all-powerful yet chooses to interact with humanity in gentleness and self-restraint.

Divine Nature

This theological understanding of praus also informs Christian anthropology—the understanding of human nature and potential. If humans are created in God’s image and called to emulate Christ, then praus becomes a key aspect of what it means to be fully human. It suggests that true strength and maturity are found not in domination or unbridled self-expression but in controlled, purposeful, and gentle exercise of one’s capabilities.

Soteriology and Sanctification

Praus plays a significant role in Christian soteriology (the doctrine of salvation) and sanctification. The gentle strength embodied in praus is seen as both a gift of grace and a goal of spiritual growth. It is something that believers are called to cultivate as they grow in Christ-likeness.

Practical Applications

The concept of praus has wide-ranging applications in Christian life and ethics:

Personal Character Development

Cultivating praus involves developing self-control, emotional intelligence, and a balanced temperament. It challenges believers to grow in both strength and gentleness simultaneously.

Interpersonal Relationships

Praus provides a model for healthy interactions, encouraging gentle correction, patient listening, and controlled responses even in conflict situations.

Leadership

Leaders who embody praus can guide with a firm but gentle hand, correcting without crushing and inspiring through example rather than domination.

Conflict Resolution

The calm strength of praus can be invaluable in mediating conflicts and finding peaceful resolutions.

Social Engagement

In addressing social issues, praus encourages an approach that is passionate yet controlled, assertive yet respectful.

Spiritual Disciplines

Practices like prayer, meditation, and fasting can be seen as ways of cultivating the inner calm and self-control characteristic of praus.

Challenges and Misunderstandings

Despite its richness, the concept of praus faces several challenges in contemporary understanding and application:

Misinterpretation as Weakness

In cultures that value assertiveness and outward displays of strength, praus can be misunderstood as weakness or passivity.

Balance with Justice

There can be tension between the gentleness of praus and the need for justice and confrontation of evil. Finding the right balance requires wisdom and discernment.

Cultivating True Praus

Developing genuine praus, as opposed to a facade of meekness that masks inner turmoil or resentment, is a lifelong process that requires deep self-reflection and spiritual growth.

Conclusion

Praus, with its rich connotations of gentle strength, controlled power, and calm composure, stands as a cornerstone of Christian character and ethics. Rooted in both classical philosophy and biblical teaching, this virtue offers a transformative approach to personal conduct, leadership, and social engagement.

The concept of praus challenges common notions of power and strength, presenting instead a model of character that is both powerful and gentle, assertive and respectful, passionate and controlled. It offers a way of being that is particularly relevant in a world often characterized by polarization, reactivity, and uncontrolled expressions of power.

For Christian theology and ethics, praus provides a crucial link between the character of God as revealed in Christ and the calling of believers to reflect divine nature. It offers a path of spiritual growth that leads to a mature, balanced character capable of navigating the complexities of life with grace and effectiveness.

As contemporary society grapples with issues of power, conflict, and human potential, the Christian understanding of praus offers valuable insights. It provides a framework for approaching challenges with strength that is not overbearing, gentleness that is not weak, and a composure that remains steady in the face of provocation.

Ultimately, the cultivation of praus is not just about personal virtue or social harmony. It is a reflection of divine character, a fruit of spiritual transformation, and a powerful witness to a different way of being in the world. In embodying praus, believers not only grow in Christ-likeness but also offer to the world a compelling alternative to dominant paradigms of power and success—one marked by gentle strength, controlled passion, and transformative grace.

The more power we have, the more sensitive we must be to restraint. We learn this from God’s infinite strength. We must only use what’s necessary, with mercy, love, and humility. Such is the challenge for those blessed with power. Power comes in many forms; to name some: financial, social, interpersonal, or political. We must be gentle and reserved in strength.

Exploring Makrothumia: A Cornerstone of Christian Character and Practice

· Leave a comment ·

Introduction

In the realm of Christian theology and ethics, few concepts are as profound and transformative as makrothumia (μακροθυμία). This Greek term, often translated as “patience,” “longsuffering,” or “forbearance,” encapsulates a virtue central to Christian character and practice. Derived from the Greek roots “makros” (long) and “thumos” (temper or passion), makrothumia literally means “long-tempered,” suggesting a capacity to endure suffering or provocation without succumbing to anger or retaliation. This blog post explores the depths of makrothumia, examining its linguistic origins, biblical usage, theological implications, and practical applications in Christian life and broader society.

We must patiently persevere. The journey is long and the discomfort must be endured. It’s an act of faith and obedience to continue to push against the world for God. We have to grow the muscle, get stronger, and endure the pain of change. We morph slowly and slowly and change into the person God wants us to be. The more we can endure, the stronger we can get, and the closer we become to the Lord.

Linguistic Analysis and Definitions

To fully grasp the concept of makrothumia, it is essential to delve into its linguistic components and authoritative definitions. The compound nature of the word itself provides initial insight: “makros” conveys the sense of length or duration, while “thumos” refers to the passionate or emotional aspect of human nature. This combination suggests a prolonged control over one’s emotional reactions, particularly in challenging circumstances.

Thayer’s Greek Lexicon

Thayer’s Greek Lexicon, a respected authority in biblical Greek, offers a nuanced definition of makrothumia. It primarily describes the term as encompassing patience, endurance, constancy, steadfastness, and perseverance. These qualities paint a picture of unwavering resilience in the face of adversity. Additionally, Thayer’s includes the notions of forbearance and slowness in avenging wrongs, highlighting the interpersonal dimension of makrothumia.

Strong’s Concordance

Strong’s Concordance (Strong’s #3115) reinforces these definitions, emphasizing the aspects of patience and longsuffering. It particularly notes the application of makrothumia in bearing troubles and ills, suggesting that this virtue is not merely passive acceptance but active endurance through difficult circumstances.

Summary of Definitions

These authoritative definitions collectively portray makrothumia as a multi-faceted virtue that combines inner strength, emotional control, and a generous spirit towards others. It is not simply the absence of negative reactions but the presence of a positive, enduring attitude in the face of challenges.

Biblical Context and Usage

The concept of makrothumia is not peripheral to Christian scripture; rather, it occupies a central place in New Testament teachings. The term appears 14 times throughout the New Testament, each instance shedding light on its significance in Christian theology and practice.

Romans 2:4

In Romans 2:4, the Apostle Paul writes, “Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, forbearance and patience (makrothumia), not realizing that God’s kindness is intended to lead you to repentance?” Here, makrothumia is attributed to God, portraying divine patience as an aspect of His character that should inspire human repentance and transformation.

Galatians 5:22

In Galatians 5:22, makrothumia is listed among the fruits of the Spirit, alongside love, joy, peace, and other virtues. This inclusion is significant, as it positions patience not as a mere human effort but as a divine quality cultivated by the Holy Spirit in the lives of believers. This theological framing elevates makrothumia from a commendable personality trait to an essential aspect of spiritual maturity.

Ephesians 4:2

Ephesians 4:2 provides practical guidance on the application of makrothumia in Christian community: “Be completely humble and gentle; be patient (makrothumia), bearing with one another in love.” This verse contextualizes patience within a broader framework of humility, gentleness, and love, suggesting that makrothumia is integral to harmonious relationships and community building.

Other Biblical Passages

Other biblical passages further illuminate the concept. Colossians 3:12 exhorts believers to “clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience (makrothumia),” presenting it as an essential garment of Christian character. James 5:10 points to the prophets as examples of patience in suffering, using makrothumia to describe their endurance.

Summary of Biblical Usage

These various contexts demonstrate that makrothumia is not a peripheral virtue in Christian teaching but a central characteristic of both divine nature and mature Christian behavior. It is portrayed as essential for personal spiritual growth, communal harmony, and faithful endurance through trials.

Theological Implications

The frequent occurrence of makrothumia in the New Testament and its association with divine attributes have significant theological implications. Firstly, it establishes patience as a godly characteristic, one that believers are called to emulate as part of their spiritual growth and witness.

Divine Quality

The inclusion of makrothumia among the fruits of the Spirit in Galatians 5:22 is particularly noteworthy from a theological perspective. This categorization implies that true patience, as understood in Christian theology, is not merely a product of human willpower or stoic endurance. Instead, it is seen as a supernatural quality, cultivated through the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit in the believer’s life. This theological framing transforms the pursuit of patience from a matter of personal discipline to a process of spiritual transformation and divine empowerment.

God’s Patience

Moreover, the attribution of makrothumia to God, as seen in Romans 2:4 and other passages, establishes a theological foundation for understanding divine-human relationships. God’s patience is presented not as indifference to human sin or suffering but as a deliberate restraint motivated by love and a desire for human repentance and reconciliation. This divine patience becomes a model for human behavior, especially in interpersonal relationships and conflict resolution.

Soteriology and Eschatology

The theological concept of makrothumia also intersects with broader themes in Christian soteriology (the doctrine of salvation) and eschatology (the study of end times). The patience of God is often linked to the delay of final judgment, allowing time for repentance and the spread of the gospel. Similarly, believers are encouraged to practice makrothumia as they await the fulfillment of divine promises and the return of Christ.

Practical Applications in Christian Life

While the theological underpinnings of makrothumia are profound, its practical applications in daily Christian life are equally significant. The cultivation of this virtue has implications for personal spiritual growth, interpersonal relationships, community building, and social engagement.

Personal Spiritual Growth

On a personal level, developing makrothumia involves a reorientation of one’s reactions to challenging circumstances. Rather than responding with immediate anger or frustration to provocations or setbacks, the practice of makrothumia encourages a measured, long-term perspective. This might involve developing habits of reflection and prayer before reacting, or consciously choosing to view difficulties as opportunities for growth rather than mere obstacles.

Interpersonal Relationships

In interpersonal relationships, makrothumia is essential for maintaining unity and demonstrating Christ-like love. It involves bearing with the faults and shortcomings of others, just as God bears with human failings. This does not mean ignoring or enabling harmful behavior but rather approaching conflicts and differences with a spirit of patience and a willingness to work towards understanding and reconciliation.

Community Building

Within Christian communities, the practice of makrothumia can be transformative. Churches and other faith-based organizations often face internal conflicts, disagreements over doctrine or practice, and the challenges of diverse personalities. The cultivation of collective patience can create an environment where differences are addressed constructively, conflicts are resolved peacefully, and the community’s witness to the wider world is strengthened.

Social Engagement

In broader social engagement, makrothumia has implications for how Christians approach issues of justice, reconciliation, and social change. While the virtue calls for patience, it does not advocate passivity in the face of injustice. Rather, it encourages a persistent, long-term commitment to positive change, even when progress seems slow or setbacks occur. This approach can be particularly relevant in areas such as racial reconciliation, environmental stewardship, and peacebuilding efforts, where change often requires sustained effort over extended periods.

Challenges and Misconceptions

Despite its positive connotations, the concept of makrothumia is not without challenges and potential misunderstandings. One common misconception is equating patience with passivity or a lack of assertiveness. However, biblical makrothumia is not about being a doormat or suppressing all negative emotions. Rather, it involves a controlled, purposeful response to difficult situations, which may sometimes include assertive action or confrontation when necessary.

Balancing with Other Virtues

Another challenge lies in balancing makrothumia with other virtues and responsibilities. For instance, how does one practice patience while also pursuing justice or protecting the vulnerable? These tensions require careful discernment and highlight the need for a holistic understanding of Christian ethics.

Cultural Obstacles

In contemporary society, the cultivation of makrothumia faces obstacles from cultural trends that prioritize instant gratification and quick results. The long-term perspective inherent in makrothumia can seem countercultural in a world of rapid communication and constant change. This presents both a challenge and an opportunity for Christian witness, as the practice of patience can offer a distinct alternative to prevailing social norms.

Conclusion

Makrothumia, with its rich connotations of patience, longsuffering, and forbearance, stands as a cornerstone of Christian character and practice. Rooted in the nature of God and cultivated through the work of the Holy Spirit, this virtue offers a transformative approach to personal growth, relationships, and social engagement.

The biblical emphasis on makrothumia challenges believers to develop a long-term, enduring perspective on life’s challenges and interpersonal dynamics. It calls for a reorientation of natural human reactions, replacing quick anger or despair with steadfast perseverance and hope.

As contemporary society grapples with issues of conflict, division, and rapid change, the Christian understanding of makrothumia offers valuable insights. It provides a framework for approaching differences.

Busyness distracts us. But it can be necessary in this world. It can be our trial, especially for those who cannot afford to not work. We need patience through this dizzying work; it can be engaging, but also distracting. If we aren’t careful, it can pull us into sin. It’s very subtle. It can first be intentional, then move slowly into willful sin. This is what we move to avoid and must not let rule over us. Overcoming this is a great test.

Exploring the Profound Meaning of Shalom: Biblical, Cultural, and Modern Insights

· Leave a comment ·

The Hebrew word “Shalom” (שָׁלוֹם) is more than just a common greeting in Jewish culture. It carries profound meanings that extend beyond its simple translation as “peace.” Shalom represents a state of completeness, tranquility, and divine grace, reflecting a holistic approach to well-being that spans physical, moral, and spiritual dimensions. This blog post delves into the depths of shalom’s significance, examining its biblical roots, cultural importance, and modern-day applications. By exploring the layers of meaning embedded within this single word, we can gain insight into the Jewish worldview and the universal human aspiration for peace and wholeness.

We need to have a role in the community. We cannot lash out. We have to push against the current of society and show God’s love. We have to work that much harder to spread the peace and love of God.

Biblical Foundations of Shalom

To truly understand the concept of shalom, one must first examine its biblical foundations. In the Hebrew Bible, shalom appears numerous times, each instance adding nuance to its meaning. Far from simply denoting the absence of conflict, shalom in biblical contexts represents a state of completeness and fulfillment.

The Priestly Blessing

In the Book of Numbers, the Priestly Blessing concludes with the line, “The Lord lift up His countenance upon you, and give you peace (shalom)” (Numbers 6:26). This blessing illustrates that shalom is viewed as a divine gift, something bestowed by God rather than merely achieved through human effort. It suggests a state of being that is in harmony with the divine will.

Isaiah’s Vision

The prophet Isaiah’s vision of a peaceful future employs the concept of shalom. In Isaiah 2:4, he describes a time when “nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore.” This passage not only depicts the absence of conflict but also implies a transformation of human nature and society—a holistic peace that permeates all aspects of existence.

The Psalms

The Book of Psalms frequently invokes shalom as a state of well-being and security. Psalm 29:11 declares, “The Lord will give strength to His people; the Lord will bless His people with peace.” Here, shalom is presented as a blessing that accompanies strength, suggesting that true peace is not weakness or passivity but a powerful state of being.

These biblical references demonstrate that shalom is deeply intertwined with the spiritual and moral fabric of Jewish thought. It represents not just an ideal state of affairs but a fundamental aspect of God’s intended order for creation.

Shalom in Rabbinic Literature

As Jewish thought evolved over centuries, rabbis and scholars continued to explore and expand upon the concept of shalom. Rabbinic literature, including the Talmud and Midrash, offers rich insights into how shalom was understood and applied in Jewish law and ethics.

Shalom as a Meta-Value

One of the most striking aspects of shalom in rabbinic thought is its elevation to a meta-value—a principle that underpins and informs all other ethical considerations. The Mishnah, a foundational text of rabbinic Judaism, states, “The world stands on three things: on justice, on truth, and on peace” (Pirkei Avot 1:18). This positioning of peace alongside justice and truth underscores its fundamental importance in Jewish ethics.

Pursuing Peace

Rabbinic literature often emphasizes the active pursuit of peace as a moral imperative. The sage Hillel is famously quoted as saying, “Be of the disciples of Aaron, loving peace and pursuing peace” (Pirkei Avot 1:12). This exhortation goes beyond merely appreciating peace to actively working towards it in all aspects of life.

Divine Nature of Shalom

The rabbis also expanded on the idea of shalom as completeness or wholeness. They saw it as a state of harmony not just between individuals or nations, but within the self and in relation to God. The Talmud teaches that one of the names of God is “Shalom,” further emphasizing the divine nature of true peace (Shabbat 10b).

Practical Applications

In practical terms, the pursuit of shalom influenced many aspects of Jewish law and custom. For instance, the rabbis instituted various practices aimed at promoting peace within communities, such as rules about gossip and slander, and procedures for resolving disputes. The concept of shalom bayit (peace in the home) became a guiding principle in Jewish family life, emphasizing the importance of harmony and mutual respect in domestic relationships.

Shalom in Modern Hebrew and Contemporary Usage

While retaining its deep spiritual and ethical connotations, shalom has also become an integral part of everyday modern Hebrew. Its use as a greeting and farewell exemplifies how deeply the concept is woven into the fabric of Jewish and Israeli culture.

Everyday Usage

The common greeting “Ma shlom’kha?” (literally, “What is your peace?”) is a prime example of how the concept of shalom permeates daily interactions. This phrase, typically translated as “How are you?”, actually inquires about one’s state of completeness or peace. The response often involves some variation of “b’seder” (fine) or “tov” (good), but the implication is that one is reporting on their overall state of well-being, not just their momentary mood.

Shalom Aleichem

Another ubiquitous use of shalom is in the traditional greeting “Shalom aleichem” (“peace be upon you”), to which the response is “Aleichem shalom” (“upon you be peace”). This exchange, which has parallels in other Semitic languages like Arabic, reflects the communal aspect of shalom. It’s not just an individual state but something shared and mutually reinforced within a community.

Geopolitical Context

In modern Israel, shalom has taken on additional layers of meaning in the context of geopolitical realities. The phrase “shalom shalom v’ein shalom” (“peace, peace, but there is no peace”), drawn from the Book of Jeremiah, is sometimes used to critique superficial or ineffective peace efforts. This usage demonstrates how the deep, holistic understanding of shalom continues to inform political and social discourse.

Shalom as a Bridge Between Cultures

While deeply rooted in Jewish tradition, the concept of shalom has resonance far beyond Jewish communities. Its rich, multifaceted nature allows it to serve as a bridge between cultures, especially in interfaith dialogues and peace initiatives.

Interfaith Connections

In interfaith contexts, shalom often finds common ground with similar concepts in other traditions. For example, it shares similarities with the Arabic “salaam,” which is not surprising given the linguistic connections between Hebrew and Arabic. Both terms encompass ideas of peace, wholeness, and well-being, and both are used as greetings.

Christian Perspectives

The Christian concept of “peace that passes all understanding,” mentioned in the New Testament, also resonates with aspects of shalom. This has allowed for meaningful interfaith discussions on the nature of peace and its spiritual dimensions.

International Relations

In the realm of international relations and conflict resolution, the depth of meaning in shalom has informed approaches that go beyond mere cessation of hostilities. Peace initiatives inspired by this holistic understanding aim for reconciliation, mutual understanding, and the creation of conditions for genuine flourishing—not just the absence of violence.

Challenges to Shalom in the Modern World

Despite its inspirational power, the realization of shalom faces significant challenges in the modern world. Conflicts, both international and interpersonal, continue to threaten the possibility of genuine peace. Economic inequalities, social injustices, and environmental crises all pose obstacles to the achievement of the wholeness and well-being implied by shalom.

The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

In Israel and the Palestinian territories, the ongoing conflict presents a particularly poignant challenge to the ideal of shalom. The complexities of this situation highlight the difficulty of translating the spiritual and ethical ideal of shalom into political and social realities.

Global Fragmentation

In an increasingly fragmented and polarized global society, the holistic nature of shalom can seem at odds with prevailing trends. The emphasis on individual rights and personal autonomy in many Western societies, while valuable in many ways, can sometimes conflict with the communal and relational aspects of shalom.

These challenges, however, also underscore the continued relevance and necessity of the concept of shalom. They remind us that peace, in its fullest sense, is not a static state to be achieved once and for all, but an ongoing process requiring constant effort and renewal.

Conclusion

Shalom, in its richness and complexity, offers far more than a simple greeting or a naive vision of world peace. It presents a holistic concept of well-being that encompasses the individual, the community, and the divine. Rooted in biblical and rabbinic traditions, it continues to inform Jewish thought and practice while also offering insights valuable to wider human endeavors for peace and wholeness.

The multifaceted nature of shalom—encompassing peace, completeness, welfare, and harmony—provides a framework for addressing the complex challenges of our time. It reminds us that true peace is not merely the absence of conflict but the presence of justice, mutual understanding, and conditions that allow for human flourishing.

As we navigate the complexities of the 21st century, the concept of shalom invites us to think holistically about our personal lives, our communities, and our world. It challenges us to move beyond simplistic notions of peace to engage with the deeper work of creating genuine wholeness and well-being for all.

In a world often marked by division and conflict, the enduring relevance of shalom offers hope and direction. It stands as a testament to the human capacity to envision and work towards a state of being that transcends our current limitations—a state of true peace, completeness, and harmony with ourselves, each other, and the divine.

It can be difficult to find peace and be a source of peace when life is chaotic. It takes intention and strength to reorient oneself to stability. It can be a skill, and it can get better over time. It shows resilience. With peace, we can move forward with the right perspective and glow towards others and all aspects of life for the Lord.

The Significance of Sabbath: Health, Spirituality, and Community

· Leave a comment ·

The Sabbath is a cornerstone of Christian religious practice with profound origins and significant biblical backing. It is rooted in the creation narrative found in the book of Genesis, where God, after creating the world in six days, rested on the seventh day. This day of rest was not merely a pause from divine activity but an establishment of a holy and sanctified period, setting a precedent for humanity. The sanctification of the Sabbath was codified in the Ten Commandments, where it is enjoined upon the faithful to “remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy” (Exodus 20:8). This commandment underscores the importance of the Sabbath, placing it alongside other foundational ethical directives, highlighting its significance in the religious life and moral framework of believers.

We must surrender our all and put out complete faith in God. Nothing is our own. Everything can disappear. We must remain uninfluenced by the pressures and temptations of the world. We have to exhaust ourselves in efforts for our God and trust we will find faith in him.

Scientific and Health Benefits

The observance of the Sabbath, while deeply spiritual, also intersects significantly with aspects of health and well-being. Modern scientific studies have elucidated the tangible benefits of Sabbath-keeping on both mental and physical health. Research from Loma Linda University in 2014 found that individuals who observed the Sabbath regularly experienced better overall health outcomes compared to those who did not. This correlation can be attributed to several factors inherent in Sabbath observance, such as the deliberate cessation of work and secular activities, which provides a structured respite from the continuous demands and stresses of modern life.

Sabbath-keeping also plays a critical role in combating stress and burnout. The practice encourages a break from the incessant use of technology and the pervasive culture of busyness, allowing for a period of rest and recuperation. By unplugging from digital devices and setting aside work-related tasks, individuals can reset their mental state, leading to improved cognitive function and emotional stability. The rhythm of work and rest instituted by the Sabbath aligns well with what health professionals advocate for maintaining a balanced and healthy lifestyle.

Modern Observance

In contemporary times, the observance of the Sabbath has evolved, integrating traditional practices with modern adaptations. Many believers clear their schedules of work and secular commitments, dedicating the day to religious services, family gatherings, and communal meals. These activities foster a sense of community and spiritual renewal, reinforcing the communal and familial bonds that are often strained by the hectic pace of daily life.

A notable modern adaptation of Sabbath observance is the concept of a “Tech Sabbath,” popularized by individuals like Tiffany Shlain. This practice involves a deliberate disconnection from all digital devices, embracing a day of digital detox. By unplugging from the constant connectivity and interruptions of technology, individuals can engage more deeply with their surroundings, their spirituality, and their relationships. This modern interpretation of the Sabbath aligns with its original intent: to provide a structured time for rest, reflection, and reconnection with the divine.

Spiritual and Social Aspects

The Sabbath is seen by many as a divine gift, intended for both spiritual and physical rejuvenation. It represents an act of trust and faith in God, a recognition that life’s ultimate sustenance and purpose come from Him. By setting aside one day each week to rest and focus on spiritual matters, believers affirm their commitment to placing God at the center of their lives, above the pressures and demands of the world.

This act of faith is a form of surrender, acknowledging that all efforts and achievements are ultimately under God’s control. It counters the temptation to view work and productivity as ends in themselves, reminding the faithful of the need to maintain a correct perspective on life’s priorities. The Sabbath serves as a regular reminder that work should not become an idol; instead, it should be balanced with rest and reflection, ensuring that one’s focus remains on God.

The communal aspect of the Sabbath is also significant. It is a time for society-wide rest, where collective spiritual renewal can take place. The shared experience of resting and worshiping together strengthens communal bonds and fosters a sense of solidarity and mutual support. In a world where individualism often prevails, the Sabbath offers a countercultural model of community and connectedness.

Faith and Surrender

Observing the Sabbath requires a profound level of faith and surrender. It is an acknowledgment that everything ultimately belongs to God and that human efforts, while important, are secondary to divine will. This mindset helps believers avoid the pressures and temptations of the world, which often prioritize material success and constant productivity over spiritual health and well-being.

Sabbath observance encourages believers to exhaust their efforts for God and find their faith in Him, rather than in their achievements. It is a practice that fosters humility, as it necessitates recognizing one’s limitations and the need for divine grace. By stepping back from work and daily concerns, individuals can cultivate a deeper sense of trust and reliance on God, reaffirming their commitment to living according to His principles.

Rest and Work Attitude

The Sabbath also promotes a healthy attitude towards work and rest. In a culture that often glorifies busyness and equates productivity with worth, the Sabbath offers a counter-narrative. It teaches that rest is not only acceptable but necessary and that it is possible to maintain a correct attitude towards work without being consumed by it.

By keeping the Sabbath, believers are reminded of the dangers of allowing work to become an idol. This regular pause from labor helps to correct any skewed perspectives, ensuring that one’s focus remains on God and His purposes. The Sabbath provides a structured opportunity to reflect on one’s relationship with work, helping to maintain a balanced approach that honors both the need for productivity and the necessity of rest.

Conclusion

The Christian Sabbath, with its profound religious roots and enduring significance, continues to offer substantial benefits for mental, physical, and spiritual well-being. Its origins in the creation narrative and its inclusion in the Ten Commandments underscore its foundational importance in the life of believers. The scientific and health benefits of Sabbath-keeping further validate its practice, providing a structured means of combating stress, burnout, and the effects of constant technology use.

Modern observance of the Sabbath, including practices like the “Tech Sabbath,” illustrates how this ancient tradition can be adapted to contemporary life, providing a necessary respite from the demands of modernity. The spiritual and social aspects of the Sabbath highlight its role as a divine gift, encouraging trust in God, spiritual renewal, and communal bonding.

Ultimately, the Sabbath calls for a balanced approach to work and rest, ensuring that spiritual focus remains intact amidst daily challenges. By observing the Sabbath, believers can cultivate a deeper sense of faith, surrender, and correct perspective, maintaining a healthy attitude towards both work and rest. The Sabbath, therefore, remains a vital practice for holistic well-being, fostering a life that is aligned with divine principles and enriched by regular periods of rest and reflection.

We must rest. We must not be consumed by work. We need the correct attitude towards work and it must not distract from the Lord. It can be difficult when work consumes our hours and time and attention; nevertheless, we must constantly keep our focus on God. To devote so much to work, the danger is that it becomes an idol. An idol we might not like, an idol we might not prefer to make an idol, yet idols can come in the form of a tumor rather than something overly enticing. For this reason, we must honor the rest and surrender all to God. We need a constant reminder to correct our perspective.

Enkrateia: The Key to Spiritual Growth and Christian Virtue

· Leave a comment ·

Enkrateia, derived from the Greek words “en” (in) and “kratos” (power), translates to having control over oneself or self-mastery. In the New Testament, it signifies self-control and temperance, essential virtues for Christian living. This concept is foundational for leading a life that aligns with Christian values and teachings.

We must combat weakness of will. We need to use all the teachings God has provided us. We have to pray for the strength of self-mastery. It involves controlling one’s thoughts and actions. The practice is so much more difficult than the theory, but it’s not impossible.

Biblical References

Galatians 5:23

In Galatians 5:23, enkrateia is listed as one of the fruits of the Spirit. This passage underscores the importance of self-control as a vital Christian virtue. The fruit of the Spirit represents the visible attributes of a Christian’s life, empowered by the Holy Spirit. Enkrateia, in this context, is not just about personal restraint but about a life transformed by spiritual discipline.

1 Corinthians 9:25

Paul, in 1 Corinthians 9:25, emphasizes the importance of self-control by likening it to an athlete’s discipline in training. Just as athletes exercise strict self-control to achieve physical mastery, Christians are called to exercise spiritual self-control to attain a life that honors God. This analogy highlights the effort and dedication required to develop enkrateia.

2 Peter 1:6

2 Peter 1:6 mentions enkrateia as a quality to be added to knowledge, indicating its role in spiritual growth. This verse suggests that self-control is not an isolated virtue but part of a broader framework of Christian virtues that contribute to a well-rounded spiritual maturity.

Theological Implications

Enkrateia in the New Testament is not just about restraint but involves active discipline and the pursuit of holiness. The virtue is closely tied to the idea of living a life that honors God, controlling one’s desires and impulses to align with divine will. This theological perspective frames self-control as a proactive and ongoing process essential for spiritual growth and maturity.

Philosophical Roots and Interpretations

Origins and Early Usage

The concept of enkrateia was first used in the context of self-control by Socrates’ students: Isocrates, Xenophon, and Plato. In ancient Greek philosophy, enkrateia was considered foundational to achieving eudaimonia, or the highest good. This early philosophical backdrop provides a rich context for understanding the development of the concept in Christian thought.

Xenophon’s Perspective

Xenophon regarded enkrateia as the foundation of all virtues, essential for achieving eudaimonia. He linked it to other virtues like sophrosyne (temperance) and epimeleia (care), suggesting that self-control is integral to a virtuous and balanced life.

Aristotle’s Interpretation

Aristotle positioned enkrateia as the opposite of akrasia (lack of self-control). He saw it as part of sophrosyne, focusing on controlling bodily pleasures and physical desires. Aristotle’s interpretation emphasizes the role of rationality and discipline in achieving self-mastery.

Plato’s Approach

While Plato did not explicitly use the term enkrateia in his earlier dialogues, his theory of the soul’s constitution suggests enkrateia as central to the human soul. Contemporary research connects enkrateia with the partition of the soul in Plato’s Gorgias, where he discusses the importance of harmonizing the rational, spirited, and appetitive parts of the soul.

Modern Scholarly Discussions

Philosophical Debates

Ongoing discussions explore the connections between enkrateia and the partition of the soul in Plato’s works. Scholars also continue to research the Aristotelian character types of akrasia and enkrateia, examining their relevance in contemporary philosophical and ethical frameworks.

Contemporary Analyses

Modern scholars analyze enkrateia in relation to current philosophical ideas and ethical frameworks. They investigate its relevance in discussions on virtue ethics and moral psychology, highlighting the enduring significance of self-control in various aspects of human life and society.

Summary

Enkrateia represents a fundamental concept in ancient Greek philosophy and Christian theology, emphasizing self-control and mastery over one’s passions. Its influence spans from classical philosophical discussions to biblical teachings, continuing to be a subject of scholarly interest in modern times. Understanding enkrateia helps in comprehending the broader framework of virtues essential for a disciplined and spiritually enriched life.

1 Corinthians 9:27

In the New Testament, the most common Greek word for self-control (temperance, KJV) is enkrateia. Its root meaning is “power over oneself” or “self-mastery.” Self-control, in its widest sense, is mastery over our passions. It is the virtue that holds our appetites in check, controlling our rational will or regulating our conduct without being unduly swayed by sensuous desires. Moderation is a key element in self-control.

Galatians 5:23

In Galatians 5:23, “self-control” (temperance, KJV) is the translation of the Greek word enkrateia, which means “possessing power, strong, having mastery or possession of, continent, self-controlled” (Kenneth S. Wuest, Word Studies in the Greek New Testament, “Galatians,” p. 160). Vincent’s Word Studies of the New Testament adds that it means “holding in hand the passions and desires” (vol. IV, p. 168). The word thus refers to the mastery of one’s desires and impulses and does not in itself refer to the control of any specific desire or impulse. If a particular desire or impulse is meant, the context will indicate it.

Self-Control in the Bible

Self-control is comprehensive in practical application to life, but the Bible does not use the word extensively. It is implied, however, in many exhortations to obedience, submission, and sinless living. The noun form is used only three times, the verb form twice (1 Corinthians 7:9; 9:25), and the adjective form once (Titus 1:8). The negative form of the adjective is used three times. In 2 Timothy 3:3, it is translated “without self-control [incontinent, KJV]”; in Matthew 23:25, “self-indulgent [excess, KJV]”; and in 1 Corinthians 7:5, “lack of self-control [incontinency, KJV].”

Another Greek word, nephalios, has the same general meaning, but it generally covers a more specific area of self-control. It is often translated as “temperate” or “sober.” Even though its root condemns self-indulgence in all forms, the Bible’s writers use it to refer to avoiding drunkenness.

Proverbs on Self-Control

Despite self-control’s obvious importance, we should not limit our understanding of these words to merely the stringent discipline of the individual’s passions and appetites. These words also include the notions of having good sense, sober wisdom, moderation, and soundness of mind as contrasted to insanity.

A good example of self-control implied in Proverbs 25:28: “Whoever has no rule over his own spirit is like a city broken down, without walls.” No specific Hebrew word in this sentence means “self-control,” but “rule” certainly implies it. In its comments on this verse, the Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible states:

The picture is that of a city whose walls have been so nearly destroyed as to be without defense against an enemy; so is the man who has no restraint over his spirit, the source of man’s passionate energies. He has no defense against anger, lust, and the other unbridled emotions that destroy the personality. (vol. 4, p. 267)

Proverbs 16:32 shows a more positive side of self-control: “He who is slow to anger is better than the mighty, and he who rules his spirit than he who takes a city.” Here Solomon uses an entirely different word for “rule,” but the sense of self-control remains. A comparison of the two proverbs reveals the great importance of self-control as both an offensive and defensive attribute.

Conclusion

Undoubtedly, self-denial, self-sacrifice, and self-control are inextricably linked in Christian life; each is part of our duty to God. Yet human nature exerts a persistent and sometimes very strong force away from God, as Romans 8:7 clearly shows: “Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be.” It is this force that each Christian must overcome. Controlling ourselves, denying human nature its impulse to satisfy its desire, and even sacrificing ourselves are necessary if we are to stop sinning as a way of life. When we add the concepts of self-denial and self-sacrifice to our understanding of self-control, we can see more easily how large a role self-control plays in the Bible.

The control we need is to focus on what is truly important; work, life, and all the noise in our lives needs to be overcome. We don’t do this naturally or instinctively. We have to be intentional and overcome our natural desire to be distracted.

The Etymology and Cultural Significance of ‘Amen’

· Leave a comment ·

The word “Amen” is ubiquitous across various religious traditions, particularly in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. It signifies affirmation, agreement, and solemnity. Despite its widespread usage, the origins and evolution of “Amen” are rich and complex, spanning multiple cultures and languages. This blog post delves into the etymology, historical context, and contemporary usage of the word “Amen,” tracing its journey from ancient texts to modern-day liturgies.

Let it be done. It is an act of faith to end a prayer and believing it will be heard. That our insignificant words will be relayed to the eternal creator of the universe. That our puny wishes can somehow influence the world or change the divine state of affairs.

Etymological Roots

Hebrew Origins

“Amen” originates from the Hebrew word אָמֵן (‘āmēn), which itself is derived from the root אָמַן (‘āmán), meaning “to confirm,” “to support,” or “to be faithful.” In the Hebrew Bible, “Amen” is used to express solemn ratification of an oath or a statement. It appears in various contexts, including declarations of faith and agreements among people. For example, in Deuteronomy 27:15-26, the Israelites respond with “Amen” to the pronouncements of curses for disobedience, signifying their acknowledgment and acceptance of the terms.

Greek and Latin Adaptations

From Hebrew, “Amen” transitioned into Greek and Latin. The Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, retained the word “Amen” (ἀμήν) without translation, maintaining its original significance. The Latin Vulgate followed suit, using “Amen” (amen) in a similar manner. This transliteration rather than translation highlights the term’s perceived sanctity and the desire to preserve its original connotations.

Other Linguistic Influences

Beyond Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, “Amen” has been adopted into numerous languages, often with slight variations in pronunciation but consistent in meaning. In Arabic, “Amen” (آمِينَ) is frequently used in Islamic prayers, such as at the end of Surah Al-Fatiha during Salah (prayer). Similarly, in Aramaic, a language closely related to Hebrew, “Amen” retains its affirmatory role.

Historical Context and Usage

Biblical Times

In biblical texts, “Amen” serves multiple functions. It appears as a response to blessings, curses, prayers, and prophecies. Its usage in both public and private settings underscores its role in community affirmation and individual devotion. The Psalms, for instance, frequently end with “Amen” (e.g., Psalm 41:13, 72:19), marking a conclusion with a seal of truth and faithfulness.

Early Christianity

Early Christian communities, drawing heavily from Jewish traditions, adopted “Amen” into their liturgical practices. It became a standard conclusion for prayers and hymns. The New Testament features “Amen” extensively, including in the teachings of Jesus. Notably, Jesus often begins his declarations with “Amen, I say to you” (translated as “Truly, I say to you”), underscoring the veracity and importance of his words (e.g., Matthew 5:18).

Medieval and Renaissance Periods

During the Medieval and Renaissance periods, the Church further institutionalized the use of “Amen” in various sacraments and liturgical rites. It became a hallmark of ecclesiastical affirmation, spoken by both clergy and laity. The Gregorian chants, for instance, often concluded with a resonant “Amen,” adding a solemn musical dimension to its usage.

Contemporary Usage

Religious Practices

Today, “Amen” remains integral to religious practices across Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. In Christianity, it is recited at the end of prayers, hymns, and liturgical declarations. In Judaism, “Amen” is similarly used in response to blessings and prayers. Islam incorporates “Amen” at the end of Surah Al-Fatiha and other prayers, reflecting its deep-rooted significance.

Secular Contexts

Interestingly, “Amen” has also found a place in secular contexts. It is used colloquially to express strong agreement or approval. Phrases like “Can I get an Amen?” have permeated popular culture, often used rhetorically to seek affirmation from an audience.

Cultural and Musical Impact

The cultural impact of “Amen” extends into music and the arts. The “Amen Break,” a drum solo from the 1969 song “Amen, Brother” by The Winstons, has been extensively sampled in various music genres, from hip-hop to electronic dance music. This rhythmic snippet, though secular in origin, underscores the versatility and cultural penetration of the word “Amen.”

Conclusion

The word “Amen” encapsulates a profound journey through time, culture, and language. From its Hebrew roots signifying faithfulness and affirmation to its widespread adoption in religious and secular settings, “Amen” continues to resonate with deep spiritual and cultural significance. Its ability to convey solemn agreement and unwavering belief ensures that “Amen” remains a powerful and enduring element of human expression.

We are not alone in this world. That’s the great hope despite all the trials. With the world’s greatest challenges comes an even greater hope. Through this existential lens and as we reflect on our place in eternity, we find ourselves with God.