During a recent channel surfing engagement, I became intrigued by a young woman strutting around a stage holding forth on the values of atheism. Like many of the so-called “New” atheists–it wasn’t the originality of her arguments that was arresting but the sheer smarminess and gleefulness with which she presented them. In her mind she had obviously settled these questions of the ages about God’s existence and anyone who might disagree with her was a complete idiot.
Putting aside for a moment my initial disagreements and tendency to dismiss something that makes me feel uncomfortable, I started to conjecture about the motivations of this woman. Was she a truth seeker who had become an evangelist for a discovered lack of belief? Had she been a believer before who had lost her faith? Or was this just a postmodern rant, a way to cry out against tradition and tradition’s God?
Possibly all three, and in all three I began to think this woman was corresponding to the rock-ribbed belief in our culture that truth seeking and rebellion go hand in hand. All truth is contrarian truth. The historic society has a thesis, believe the antithesis. As Dallas Willard has written: “We live in a culture that has, for centuries now, cultivated the idea that the skeptical person is always smarter than one who believes.”
Something is missing here. The classic dialectic is not a dyad (thesis and antithesis) but a triad (thesis, antithesis, and synthesis). You don’t arrive at truth by merely doing the opposite, you weigh the opposing factors and try to find the balance. Of course it could be argued in today’s culture that there is no truth to seek, that rebellion for rebellion’s sake is permissible because no synthesis is sought.
And of course this spirit of rebellion is apparent beyond just the secular society. Spiritual seekers and those in the Church also love playing the devil’s advocate, and many aren’t just playing. I remember watching a video of the Jesus Seminar scholars years ago voting on the legitimacy of specific Bible verses (John 3:16? 8 yeas and 30 nays!) I wouldn’t say smarminess and gleefulness were apparent but a certain overall smugness was.
In my journey of faith I’ve certainly found myself gravitating towards taking contrarian positions. Like many Christians, my initial honeymoon period with my faith was followed by a sense of disillusionment, starting for me when I learned a fellow Christian had committed suicide (I thought God didn’t tempt us beyond what we were able!). In some ways I haven’t recovered from this disillusionment, which reveals itself in my constant questioning, critiquing, and carping about various “injustices” I see in my church and the Church.
For perspective, spiritual writers through the years have talked about the four stages of spiritual growth, which author Scott Peck had made popular in recent years. In an over-simplified nutshell, the stages include:
Stage 1–Living for yourself.
Stage 2–Letter of the Law, often after a salvation experience
Stage 3–Freedom from unnecessary constraints
Stage 4–Spirit of the Law, an integration of obedience and freedom
Within these stages it is important to note that stage 3 is considered a progression on the road to maturity, a step ahead of stage 2, where a strict adherence to all the rules can lead to a rigid fundamentalism. “For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.” Peck suggests that for some believers on their journey playing golf on Sunday might be better than attending a service as they can experience a freedom in faith and get perspective on what truly motivates them.
But Stage 3 is seen as a means to an end–not an end to itself. And what is that end? The making of a mature believer, someone who has the law written on their hearts, someone who can go past seeking to finding. Stage 4 is where we go from freedom for freedom’s sake to freedom for the sake of the Gospel.
Certainly a lofty goal, a goal which many of us have trouble embracing with any consistency. But let’s a least know where we’re headed, and look for a balance that goes from “freedom from” to “freedom to.”
Putting aside for a moment my initial disagreements and tendency to dismiss something that makes me feel uncomfortable, I started to conjecture about the motivations of this woman. Was she a truth seeker who had become an evangelist for a discovered lack of belief? Had she been a believer before who had lost her faith? Or was this just a postmodern rant, a way to cry out against tradition and tradition’s God?
Possibly all three, and in all three I began to think this woman was corresponding to the rock-ribbed belief in our culture that truth seeking and rebellion go hand in hand. All truth is contrarian truth. The historic society has a thesis, believe the antithesis. As Dallas Willard has written: “We live in a culture that has, for centuries now, cultivated the idea that the skeptical person is always smarter than one who believes.”
Something is missing here. The classic dialectic is not a dyad (thesis and antithesis) but a triad (thesis, antithesis, and synthesis). You don’t arrive at truth by merely doing the opposite, you weigh the opposing factors and try to find the balance. Of course it could be argued in today’s culture that there is no truth to seek, that rebellion for rebellion’s sake is permissible because no synthesis is sought.
And of course this spirit of rebellion is apparent beyond just the secular society. Spiritual seekers and those in the Church also love playing the devil’s advocate, and many aren’t just playing. I remember watching a video of the Jesus Seminar scholars years ago voting on the legitimacy of specific Bible verses (John 3:16? 8 yeas and 30 nays!) I wouldn’t say smarminess and gleefulness were apparent but a certain overall smugness was.
In my journey of faith I’ve certainly found myself gravitating towards taking contrarian positions. Like many Christians, my initial honeymoon period with my faith was followed by a sense of disillusionment, starting for me when I learned a fellow Christian had committed suicide (I thought God didn’t tempt us beyond what we were able!). In some ways I haven’t recovered from this disillusionment, which reveals itself in my constant questioning, critiquing, and carping about various “injustices” I see in my church and the Church.
For perspective, spiritual writers through the years have talked about the four stages of spiritual growth, which author Scott Peck had made popular in recent years. In an over-simplified nutshell, the stages include:
Stage 1–Living for yourself.
Stage 2–Letter of the Law, often after a salvation experience
Stage 3–Freedom from unnecessary constraints
Stage 4–Spirit of the Law, an integration of obedience and freedom
Within these stages it is important to note that stage 3 is considered a progression on the road to maturity, a step ahead of stage 2, where a strict adherence to all the rules can lead to a rigid fundamentalism. “For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.” Peck suggests that for some believers on their journey playing golf on Sunday might be better than attending a service as they can experience a freedom in faith and get perspective on what truly motivates them.
But Stage 3 is seen as a means to an end–not an end to itself. And what is that end? The making of a mature believer, someone who has the law written on their hearts, someone who can go past seeking to finding. Stage 4 is where we go from freedom for freedom’s sake to freedom for the sake of the Gospel.
Certainly a lofty goal, a goal which many of us have trouble embracing with any consistency. But let’s a least know where we’re headed, and look for a balance that goes from “freedom from” to “freedom to.”
RSS Feed