Definition Breeds Expectation December 21, 2009
Posted by shijosgeorge in Reflections.add a comment
<Irony>
I think it’s natural to want to define everything. Ever since I was young, I’ve had to pronounce, define, and “use-in-a-sentence” so often, I still dread the thought of it. I can still remember looking down at the wide-ruled looseleaf sheet of paper thinking, “I really have to fill this whole page?!” then, after finishing, “I have to do this again next week?!” Maybe it was those fractions of hours spent each day that birthed a desire that grew into a mindset of defining all I come in contact with.
Maybe it’s an innate human desire to know more – a few years ago I heard that human knowledge doubles every two years. I can’t even fathom if that rate is lower, the same, or higher now but, any way you cut it, that’s an exorbitant amount of learning. I can’t claim to know why humans push forward, but if I were to guess, it has to do with independence (from everything) and control (of everything). Once we “know about” something, it’s as if we can hold it in our hands, and mold it to our liking. We give it boundaries and limits – and study the inner workings enough to know what output we’ll get when we vary our inputs.
The funny thing about independence is that, although we’re taught it from a young age (i.e., Timmy gets a cookie for tying his shoes by himself), it seems to fight against our desire for control. Weird, right? Think about it though, for example, the popularity of self-help books and business analysis books. We yearn to free ourselves or our businesses from what we believe to be ethereal thralls so much so that we get to the point where we let a faraway voice, who has no perspective on our situation, set up boundaries and guidelines on how we should life our life or run our company. Dystopian novels thrive on the fact that people love to be told what to do as long as if falls within a realm of comfort they set up for themselves. If an author (or dictator) had a track record, I may even be inspired to sacrifice parts of my comfort box for a time, possibly even altogether.
So I think all our attempts at “defining” leads to the logical question of, “Can all things be known?”, which suggests the question, “Can all things be under our control?” If there are things that can never be fully known, then a problem arises when we try to define them. Similarly, a problem arises when we prematurely define something that turns out to be bigger than we originally envisioned. In our rapid industrialization of theories and thoughts, where we seek to process more efficiently and yield higher outputs and profits, we tend to overlook a growing crack in our path: expectation.
Expectation generally isn’t a bad thing. It plays a role in encouraging, growing, and inspiring. The standards set can boost our confidence, push us to higher levels, or maybe more importantly, give us the desire to move to higher levels. It’s when we rest on expectations that we fall over; unexpectedly so when they are founded on premature definitions or the undefinable. At times, we can easily go too far with those people with whom we think we are close, expecting something grand or deep, but receiving nothing of the sort. Sometimes we can easily fit close friends, spouses, or relatives into cages of expectation where we think we know someone so well that we tell ourselves we’d rather not talk to them about certain things, or avoid certain discussion topics because of the direction it would head, eventually finding out it was for our own loss.
The list of things that we tend to define too early or can’t be defined at all is probably endless, but a few that come to mind would be the human spirit, diseases, joy, depression, vortex tubes, love, God… the list continues.
</Irony>
New York Giants Fan December 12, 2009
Posted by shijosgeorge in New Things.add a comment
Lynn True, the Giants Fan
Legalism vs. Antinomianism December 10, 2009
Posted by shijosgeorge in Reflections.Tags: actions, antinomianism, heart, legalism
2 comments
So I’ve always wondered what the opposite of legalism was and, you guessed it, it’s antinomianism. Here are some definitions, courtesy of webster.com:
Legalism
1 : strict, literal, or excessive conformity to the law or to a religious or moral code <the institutionalized legalism that restricts free choice>
2 : a legal term or rule
Antinomianism
1 : one who holds that under the gospel dispensation of grace the moral law is of no use or obligation because faith alone is necessary to salvation
2 : one who rejects a socially established morality
I’ve always found these two extremes interesting because I’ve dealt with them a lot. Legalism is interesting because, on the surface, it comes off as strict rule abiding. You do things for the sake of doing them because, at some point in history, they were been established as “the right things to do”. In Christianity, it follows the idea that in order to get into heaven, you need to do certain things. You’ll earn your way in by consistently following the rules enough. Convincing, and logically sound, but conflicting with the whole purpose of Jesus Christ. If people could do it by actions, there would be no need for a messiah.
Antinomianism seems more right, but feels more wrong sometimes. The idea of not requiring standards and being free from all kinds of rules because of grace seems like it should be loving and correct, but people running around doing what they so please and claiming “I’m free by grace” is irresponsible. Grace isn’t a free pass; it’s a second (or third, or fourth) chance, which have two completely different connotations. One says, “I know God forgives, so I can do whatever I want to do. He’ll forgive me just in case it’s wrong.” The other says, “I’m no where near where I should be, but God gives me another chance to try and achieve it.”
So these two sides battle; in my mind, in the church, around the world. The condition of the “heart” brings up some thoughts. In a story recalling a seer picking a new king of Israel for preparation, the seer looks for a man who fits the profile of a mighty leader. God speaks and tells him that although man (like the seer) looks at the outside appearance, He looks at the heart. So, in addtion to what we do and don’t do, there is the matter of intention and desire (look up: essentialism). A legalist can run with this idea and say that the heart is definitely important, but could argue that you really don’t know the condition of your heart unless portrayed by your actions. You heart and actions are permanently intertwined. An antinomian can run with this idea and say that a person is, in fact, free from all rules. All rules and actions dictated are meant to create a good heart, because that’s what God looks at. You can do (and not do) tons of things, but as long as you maintain that your heart is in the right place while you’re doing (or not doing) them, you’ll be set. Your heart and actions are mutually exclusive.
Unfortunately, my heart and actions are part of the same person: me. Although they won’t always work in conjunction, I know I can’t completely separate them either. So where does that leave me? Obviously the right answer is somewhere in the middle. I don’t want to become legalistic in the sense that my actions count for everything, or make me think that I’m better or more suited than anyone. I also don’t want to be antinomian and think that my actions count for nothing, or that I’ve made no progress since I started my Christian journey. I think, in the end, I need to ask myself a few questions: Am I Christian to get something out of it, or is it to maintain a formerly unattainable relationship with God? Do I do things in order to show, or because I am? Do I become idle or adamant because I want to move God, or because God is moving in me? Do I live a life that intends to bring God closer to me, or brings me closer to God?
